brucegee1962 says: “The graphic IMPLIES that all the rest of the studies support global warming. However, that probably isn’t true.”

Actually, it probably is true. Anthropogenic climate change is an inevitable consequence of the standard theory of Earth’s climate. The overwhelming majority of articles assume this theory implicitly at the very least, and so support the consensus.

There is no controversy among scientists on this issue. None. Anthropogenic climate change is as well established as evolution.

To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.

I often tend to be of the impression that scientists don’t know what they are talking about, with all of their futile “facts” and “evidence” and “data”. When I want to know what is true, I rely on politicians and pundits. Those foolish scientists, so misled by their scientism, just can’t get the simple true reality that the average Joe Six-Pack, high-paid television bloviators, and smarmy anti-minority, pro-Jesus legislators have determined already, through such simple and obvious means that they require no elaboration or support. Stupid, stupid scientists and their inability to just FEEL the right answers.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Wild weather is taking a toll on roads, airports, railways and transit systems across the country.

That’s leaving states and cities searching for ways to brace for more catastrophes like Superstorm Sandy that are straining the nation’s transportation lifelines beyond what their builders imagined.

Despite their concerns about intense rain, historic floods and record heat waves,

some transportation planners find it too politically sensitive to say aloud a source of their weather worries: climate change. continues

Global warming is here now. It’s gotten to the point where the people who keep our civilization moving (literally), have to start making plans.

Rising sea levels threaten the coasts and coastal cities.

Extreme heat waves and droughts threaten our food supply.

Our transportation infrastructure was not designed for the world we have now or the one we will have in the future.

We will have to adapt and that will take hundreds of billions of dollars. Already NYC is talking about $20 billion in Dutch style storm surge protection. That sounds like a lot of money until you realize one recent storm cost them $30 billion and NJ 30 billion USD.

Climate change deniers will go the way of Heliocentrism deniers who think the sun orbits the earth. No matter how dumb something is, at least 20% of the population will believe it anyway, often for religious reasons.

I have a libertarian friend who seems to honestly believe that it’s better to live in a world where free people burn everything to the ground than in a world where the State coerces people to do its bidding.

He initially thought global warming was just a bunch of overblown nonsense, but after I convinced him otherwise he just reverted to the position that even if it’s worth worrying about it’s still immoral and unethical for the government to force people to do anything about it. And if that means that we run ourselves into the ground, then that’s just a price worth paying.

I really just don’t understand it at all. I literally cannot wrap my mind around how otherwise highly intelligent people can think this way.

If I were not a scientist I would look at this chart and claim the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Fortunately, I understand that science is a process that reaches consensus and is not dependent upon who yells the loudest.

It drives me nuts that conservative media has managed to completely flatten everything other than laissez faire market capitalism as soviet communism.

There is a massive difference between regulation or tax policy shaping the contours of a private market, partial socialist ownership in a market economy, and a wide variety of corporate entities capable of participating in a market economy without capitalist funding systems (crowd-sourcing, co-operatives, non-profit organizations) and non-government market systems (like unions), long before you get into a command economy run by a single-party dictatorship.

But for conservatives and glibertarians, any government involvement* is STALIN!

@raven
-I don’t think Abdul advocated killing anyone. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, after all. Also, almost no libertarian seriously advocates not continuing to use government services.

Don’t be silly, Enopoletus Harding. We fully acknowledge that Abdul is not frothing at the mouth with the urge personally to kill anyone. He does, though, regard it as more moral for any number of other people – as long as it’s other people – to die than for him to raise a finger or to tweak a single brain cell. That is where we of the Horde disagree with him.

Now try this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHQyz3rhIQo – where the water rushing past the car at the start is 50 metres from my front door. It’s a paved footpath and not a river in spate and this particular rush of water had already been in the back door and out the front of a whole set of houses positioned half-way up a hill. It also brought down 40+ truckloads of stone and debris.

Now, should I not notice such things? Am I still supposed to put your emotional security, however unsoundly based, ahead of what I see with my own eyes. Will it be OK for me to panic once I’m up to my arse in water? Or will it do that it’s my neighbour’s arse, as they say?

If I were not a scientist I would look at this chart and claim the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Fortunately, I understand that science is a process that reaches consensus and is not dependent upon who yells the loudest.

If so-called libertarians were actually honestly concerned about their so-called principles they would be advocating strongly for voluntary individual behavioral change, freely chosen, for all circumstances where collective action is needed to solve a problem.

They would be loud and strident and vocal about individuals reducing their own carbon footprints, lobbying for consumers to boycott dirty industries, and so forth.

If they truly and honestly thought that government action is not the solution to large problems, but individual choice is, then that is what they would be doing.

But of course that is not what they do.

And by this we know that the truth is they do not actually care about individual choice or freedom or any of the other things they claim to care about. It is all hypocrisy and lies to cloak what they REALLY want in acceptable language – the power to do whatever they want for their own personal selfish advantage, and to freely exploit all other people for their own personal short term gain.

So long as I can get my suntan, let the world burn.

It is ironic that much of the trappings of religion probably first arose as an attempt by society to contain malignant individuals such as these. Libertarianism is an evil older and greater than any religion.

I don’t think Abdul advocated killing anyone. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, after all.

In libertarianism the non-aggression principle applies to everyone but me. I on the other hand, am free to use whatever level of aggressive I see fit, so long as I, and I alone, think it is necessary for whatever I see my personal best interests to be at the time.

Also, almost no libertarian seriously advocates not continuing to use government services.

There is no controversy among scientists on this issue. None. Anthropogenic climate change is as well established as evolution.

I agree with your overall point, but this is just wrong, unless you’re defining “this issue” as the narrowest point that there is agreement on bare facts the the climate is warming and human released CO2 is responsible.

However, there is tons of controversy between scientists on all aspects of this, whether it be the methods and techniques for measuring it, the methods, techniques and results for predicting its magnitude, both past and future, the methods techniques and results for determining what effects it will have etc etc etc.

That’s how science works, and how it should work. Conclusions are continuously tested against evidence, and are either rejected or refined and tested again. Even things so strongly established as the “laws” of physics (which in reality are hypotheses proposed by Newton and others to describe observable results) are constantly being tested, at least as to causes and the limits of their application.

Framing this as “no controversy” I think really just plays into the argument of Conservatives to point to the next journal article that say, says IPCC numbers are off by 2% because they didn’t consider “X,” to say “no you’re wrong, there is still debate” without being honest about the scope of the debate.

However, there is tons of controversy between scientists on all aspects of this, whether it be the methods and techniques for measuring it, the methods, techniques and results for predicting its magnitude, both past and future, the methods techniques and results for determining what effects it will have etc etc etc.

But this has nothing to due with the conclusion, and is a distraction as to the real magnitude of the problem. And there isn’t that much differential between the groups. All this does is give the liberturds and other idjits wiggle room for claiming there isn’t a true consensus, where there is a consensus. Why are you stating this? What is your political agenda? Only those with political agendas are not on board with the consensus, and try to pretend it isn’t relevant.

Why are you stating this? What is your political agenda? Only those with political agendas are not on board with the consensus, and try to pretend it isn’t relevant.

Are you familiar with the term “ad hominem?” Do you think suggesting that I’d only make a particular argument because I “have an agenda” is anything other than a circumstantial ad hominem?

I’m a lawyer. I make arguments for a living and spent a substantial part of every day thinking about what arguments to make and how they’re countered, both logically and with evidence. It also both leads to and stems from me being a bit contrarian by nature.

My “agenda” is suggesting that people ought to make accurate arguments, because when you make inaccurate ones you only leave yourself open for attacks. A closely related premise is that you only have a reasonable chance at an argument if you consider people’s point of view.

All this “consensus” talk and questioning the motives of people who dare quibble about “consensus” and only plays into the arguments of deniers because it really is itself an argument from authority. 99.0083% of peer reviewed articles support the consensus, therefore it must be true. That’s the argument you’re making when you say the “consensus” is relevant.

The Cato institute then turns around and says “see, the AGW fanatics don’t want to face you on the merits, they just keep talking about consensus, when we really know that consensus is manufactured see e.g “hide the decline.” Then they go back to articles that dispute it, or dispute some fraction of it.

As I said before, most of their claims stem either from a failure or know, or a willful misrepresentation of the scientific process, that challenge and refinement is how science happens. It’s good there are articles questioning the consensus because otherwise no development is happening.

The consensus argument doesn’t meet their claims, in short it’s not designed to convince many people who don’t already believe it. If you’re honest, I think it’s about patting yourself on the back. “All the scientists agree with us, how could those conservatives be so stupid!”

Ben, admittedly, the first clause of what you quoted @42 is ambiguous, but the second one clarifies to what it refers — which is, as you noted initially, that the existence of the phenomenon called AGW is scientifically indisputable.

(So I find your quibbling specious, because it relies on looking at one element of a contention in isolation)

Unfortunately for the AGW deniers, the pie chart is graphically not even scaled in their favour. If that slice is 24/13950 of a degree, then the arclength of the little red slice at the outer perimeter should be less than 1/10 of a millimetre. It is not, so the pie chart slice should actually be even thinner to accurately represent the ratio 24/13950. I suspect that a slice that thin would just look black, so they enlarged it a bit to make it even visible.

Ben P,
You are correct. I should be specific about the context of my “no controversy” comment. However, I had thought it would be clear from the methodology outlined in the desmogblog post.

There is no controversy that
1)the temperature of the planet is warming
2)that humans are behind this warming
3)that the planet will continue to warm at roughly 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2
4)that the warming of the planet poses a range of threats to the infrastructure (including agriculture) on which civilization depends
5)that there are positive feedbacks both in the carbon cycle and in the climate (not taken into account by the 3 C per doubling) that threaten to rip what little control we have of our destiny from our hands

I would note that these are pretty much all that is required to be true for the consensus on anthropogenic climate change as represented in the IPCC reports to be valid.

I must, however, take issue here with your characterization of consensus. First, the methodology undertaken by Powell actually provides an excellent estimate of the level of consensus. Second, this consensus is quite important, because it demonstrates the importance of the tenets of the standard model of climate science. That is, if you dissent from that model–and in particular, the role of CO2 as a well mixed, long-lived greenhouse gas, it is extremely unlikely that you will have anything of interest about the climate.

Scientific consensus is not a simple poll. It measures the utility of ideas, theories, analysis techniques, etc. Scientific consensus is essential to the scientific method. Einstein never believed in quantum mechanics. Newton never believed in the wave theory of light. Yet, in Newton’s time, when a powerful figure disagreed with a powerful theory, progress could be halted. Quantum mechanics merely flowed around and over Einstein.

Do you think suggesting that I’d only make a particular argument because I “have an agenda” is anything other than a circumstantial ad hominem?

NOPE. I’m a scientist, and recognize distraction when I see it.

My “agenda” is suggesting that people ought to make accurate arguments, because when you make inaccurate ones you only leave yourself open for attacks.

And yet, you present no differences in the models, show no differences in the extent of “argument”, making only vague suggestions that there is a huge difference in OPINION, when it is only a couple of degrees. Links to the relevant articles are missing, making your claims bogus. Science is done via the scientific literature. Which is missing in your posts.

I’m a lawyer.

That explains your ignorance and lack of citations. And lawyers never have agendas…*snicker*

It’s good there are articles questioning the consensus because otherwise no development is happening.

What real articles challenging the consensus? There are some imagufactured ones pretending there is a non-consensus on AGW, so the Cato Institute (liberturds and other RWA fuckwits) can point to.

If you’re honest, I think it’s about patting yourself on the back. “All the scientists agree with us, how could those conservatives be so stupid!”

If you understand how hard it is to get scientists to agree to anything (there are some real egos involved), that fact that there is essentially no scientific dissent on AGW over the scientific community is telling. You seem to belittle the consensus.

Ben, admittedly, the first clause of what you quoted @42 is ambiguous, but the second one clarifies to what it refers — which is, as you noted initially, that the existence of the phenomenon called AGW is scientifically indisputable.

(So I find your quibbling specious, because it relies on looking at one element of a contention in isolation)

I think the same response applies to the extent people make similar arguments about evolution.

I fully agree that there is an extremely broad consensus to the effect that (a) the earths’ climate is warming, and (b) this is the result of human released Carbon dioxide. However, the more facts you add beyond this the consensus starts to erode bit by bit.

Likewise, I fully agree that there is an equally broad consensus that (a) organisms inherit biological characteristics through the operation of genetics, (b) these traits evolve from generation to generation through the mechanism of natural selection and (c) life on earth arises from a common ancestor. (or at least that’s my crack at describing the theory of evolution in bullet points).

That said, when people dispute evolution, I don’t think calling them stupid and telling them that 99.9% of biologists agree on the basic facts of evolution is any more likely to change their minds than calling a global warming denier stupid and telling them 99.9% of climate scientists agree on the basic facts of AGW.

That said, when people dispute evolution, I don’t think calling them stupid and telling them that 99.9% of biologists agree on the basic facts of evolution is any more likely to change their minds than calling a global warming denier stupid and telling them 99.9% of climate scientists agree on the basic facts of AGW.

Ah, another tone troll trying to pretend people aren’t being purposely stupid when they are. Show these people should be respected, and that respecting them causes them to convert faster than being mocked and ridiculed.

That said, when people dispute evolution, I don’t think calling them stupid and telling them that 99.9% of biologists agree on the basic facts of evolution is any more likely to change their minds than calling a global warming denier stupid and telling them 99.9% of climate scientists agree on the basic facts of AGW.

Do not assume that the goal is in any way to convince that particular person. Most such people, in either of these or similar issues, are not so set in their thinking that it is not worth the effort of trying to convince them.

The goal is to prevent them from convincing others by calling out their falsehoods and their fallacies.

However, there is tons of controversy between scientists on all aspects of this, whether it be the methods and techniques for measuring it, the methods, techniques and results for predicting its magnitude, both past and future, the methods techniques and results for determining what effects it will have etc etc etc.

And there is tons of controversy between scientists on all aspects of evolution, from the methods and techniques for determining precise phylogenies, interpretations of fossils, the magnitudes and rates and directions of evolutionary changes in the past and present and future, the relative importance of selection versus drift and exaption in the evolution of particular traits and lineages, etc, etc, etc.

I’m the first poster above, and I think it’s interesting how, for both myself and Ben P., folks immediately jumped in to assume that, because we were questioning the rhetorical effectiveness of a particular graphic, we must therefor be anthro GW deniers.

As a matter of fact, I’m completely convinced by GDW. But as a skeptic, I’m also interested in making truth-based arguments — both because they’re true, and because they’re more likely to convince the opposition than dishonest arguments.

Note that the black area in the graphic isn’t labeled “Studies supporting AGW.” The only thing we’re told about these studies is that they don’t deny AGW. There could be any number of studies that neither support nor oppose it — and a layman would probably assume that this is a number that could be quite large. So if there were 24 articles denying it, 16 articles supporting it, and 13,910 that neither supported nor denied it, then the graphic would be technically correct, but obviously misleading.

I mean, just because 100% of the scientific articles published last year don’t explicitly deny the existence of leprechauns doesn’t mean leprechauns exist.

It’s true, I didn’t follow the link and look at the original location of the graphic. It seems the originator is making the argument that anything that doesn’t deny AGW supports it. But again, a non-climatologist — or heck, a ten-year-old child — would immediately say, “Wait, so an article that talks about causes of the ice age is getting lumped into the category of AGW support? What are you trying to pull here?”

The graphic simply would have been more convincing if it had three pie slices labled pro-AGW, anti-AGW, and unrelated studies.

There is no controversy that
3)that the planet will continue to warm at roughly 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2
4)that the warming of the planet poses a range of threats to the infrastructure (including agriculture) on which civilization depends

You agree that virtually all of the relevant models incorporate a range of data and produce a range of possible results, no? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and in reality it doesn’t diminish the strength of any individual conclusions a bit. Despite Nerd of Redhead’s condescension above, he says the same thing, a difference of a couple degrees.

It follows naturally to say that those “couple of degrees” create the scope of the consensus.

However, when you argue “from consensus,” it makes it very easy for people wanting to attack the merits to simply attack “the consensus.” They say the consensus is manufactured on something other than evidence, or point out disagreement within the scope of the consensus.

I mean, just because 100% of the scientific articles published last year don’t explicitly deny the existence of leprechauns doesn’t mean leprechauns exist.

Ah, the old “absolute knowledge” sophistry. In the scientific method, which doesn’t acknowledge absolute knowledge, getting better than 99.8% agreement on a topic is very good…Which all skeptics can agree.

Ah, another tone troll trying to pretend people aren’t being purposely stupid when they are. Show these people should be respected, and that respecting them causes them to convert faster than being mocked and ridiculed.

You know what they say about anecdotes, but I’ll tell you what I see in my job.

Compared to PZ, you, probably half the commentariat of this blog, your average juror is dumb. Over 50% of jurors I see have no college education whatsoever, and a non-trivial portion are barely literate. In some parts of my state (Arkansas) the high school graduation rate hovers at 50%. Depending on the county I’m in they are as often as not precisely the sort of people who believe that evolution is a hoax and global warming is a conspiracy.

However, I’ve seen millions of dollars in jury verdicts that tell me you NEVER win by treating the jurors like idiots or making fun of them. They only resent you and harden their beliefs. I have to explain this crap to new york lawyers all the time, that telling a jury full of farmers that you went to Harvard or work in a firm of 900 lawyers doesn’t make them think you’re smart, it makes them resent you. But if you’re going to convince them of anything you can’t simply talk over their heads either.

Rather, the best of us (and in this field I am a journeyman at best, not a master) excel at getting inside someone’s head and approaching any given argument in terms they understand and think themselves.

Ben P. ,
You evidently did not read what I wrote about scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is an excellent argument, because a consensus greater, than, say 90%, demonstrates that a particular theory, idea, etc. is indispensable for understanding the area of study.

The 90% confidence range for CO2 sensitivity is 2-4.5 degrees per doubling. The favored value is 3 degrees. Arguing where in that range is falls is arguing about the proper arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Ben, your Juror argument is bogus in science. And you know that. While you may have to deal with ignorance and stupidity, you didn’t show it effected the science. Which it can’t. Only more science refutes science, and only ridicule causes people to question to their beliefs. You haven’t demonstrated otherwise. Evidence. You know, citations…

Scientific consensus is an excellent argument, because a consensus greater, than, say 90%, demonstrates that a particular theory, idea, etc. is indispensable for understanding the area of study.

The 90% confidence range for CO2 sensitivity is 2-4.5 degrees per doubling. The favored value is 3 degrees. Arguing where in that range is falls is arguing about the proper arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.

I fully agree with what you’re saying about deck chairs on the titanic, but you’re still approaching this from the wrong angle.

Suppose I work for CATO and and want to make an argument (honestly or not) that global warming is bunk.

I see “the 90% confidence range for CO2 sensitivity is 2-4.5 degrees” and I say “they tell us there’s a consensus, but even the scientists that purportedly “agree” have numbers that differ from each other by more than 100%, this whole consensus is an illusion.”

You are quite right to call that argument bullshit.

What I’m saying is that even if the CATO institute people are just lying for a cause, most people don’t know one argument from the other. When they see “consensus” and “no consensus” many of them see “Yes you are!” “No I’m not!”

Ben, your Juror argument is bogus in science. And you know that. While you may have to deal with ignorance and stupidity, you didn’t show it effected the science. Which it can’t. Only more science refutes science, and only ridicule causes people to question to their beliefs. You haven’t demonstrated otherwise. Evidence. You know, citations…

In all your condescension you consistently miss the point.

I’m not disputing the science. Let me say that again, I’m not disputing the science.

I’m making a point about the argument being used to present the science, and whether it is an effective one. You can continue to say “consensus” and continue to bemoan polls that say 42% of people don’t believe what science shows us, or you can devote thought to how to explain *how* we know what science shows us and why the science is right.

Some people (I keep using CATO as an example) have an interest in not seeing the truth. I deal with that daily in my job too. They’re called opposing counsel. My job is not to convince them because they’re being paid not to believe what I’m saying, at best it’s to convince them they have to take me seriously.

I don’t believe the majority of people have any interest in affirmatively misrepresenting climate. Those are the people you should be thinking about.

However, when you argue “from consensus,” it makes it very easy for people wanting to attack the merits to simply attack “the consensus.”

Which is great, considering the consensus is scientific, having been reached by teams of scientists applying the scientific method to observations of reality, and therefore any attempt to attack it must be made using science.

Trying to attack the consensus using science will require people to actually pay attention to the science behind the consensus on AGW, and that can only end in a win, as the pie chart demonstrates.

Which is great, considering the consensus is scientific, having been reached by teams of scientists applying the scientific method to observations of reality, and therefore any attempt to attack it must be made using science.

True but….

If you want to eventually enact some policy to attempt to halt global warming, you have to reach an audience broader than scientists.

In some ways that audience is narrow, 435 representatives and 100 senators and their aides etc. You have stiff competition for access there. But the broader audience is the people that elect them.

So far scientists haven’t been very successful in doing that, and I’m a big believer in trying to figure out why that is.

Because normal people are too stupid to listen to experts, be they doctors, accountants, or scientists, if they feel threatened by the conclusions.

Fair enough, but when a normal person is too stupid to shut up and take their medicine, it hurts just them. (well, not with vaccines, but I digress).

However, if 50%+1 of the population or their representatives are too stupid to shut up and try to fix global warming, it hurts all of us.

Really, i think its pretty analogous to having to explain a case to a jury where if I don’t do it right, it will cost my client lots of money that they really shouldn’t have to pay, or deprive my client of lots of money they are entitled to.

You may believe that you just ought to be able to tell that 50%+1 of the people to shut up and take their medicine, but the government just doesn’t work that way, nor, I think, should it, for lots of reasons. Platonic Philosopher kings are benevolent, but they are inevitably people, with all the associated failings and weaknesses.

About 1.7 million people live in this area, which includes a major port and is home to the world’s largest naval base. All it takes is a high tide or heavy rain to cause problems, Fraim says.

“We deal with stormwater flooding in the city now on a monthly basis,” he says. “And we talk about planning for it, mitigating, all the time.”

The city doesn’t have much choice. Fraim says Sandy turned city streets into rivers, even though it was just a Category 1 storm that passed by well out to sea.

“A severe Category 2 or a Category 3 storm, if we were to receive a direct hit, almost all of the city would be underwater,” Fraim says.

That’s true even though Norfolk has already done a lot to protect itself.

The Problem Of Rising Water

Larry Atkinson, an oceanographer at Old Dominion University, likes to show visitors the massive sea wall that usually keeps water out of Norfolk’s downtown. etc.

There are other cities on the east coast having flooding problems.

Norfolk, Virginia (Tidewater area) is one of them. According to npr, they see flooding every month now. A few decades ago they built a sea wall. It worked. It has now stopped working.

They have plans to spend $1 billion on sea walls etc.. They don’t have the money. They could ask the feds, who just spent $14 billion on New Orleans. But that would be….SOCIALISM. I don’t think the majority of politicians in Virginia are in favor a socialism. I guess they will just develop an interest in human powered water crafts.

Fair enough, but when a normal person is too stupid to shut up and take their medicine, it hurts just them. (well, not with vaccines, but I digress).

However, if 50%+1 of the population or their representatives are too stupid to shut up and try to fix global warming, it hurts all of us.

Agreed.

Really, i think its pretty analogous to having to explain a case to a jury where if I don’t do it right, it will cost my client lots of money that they really shouldn’t have to pay, or deprive my client of lots of money they are entitled to.

…except instead of competing on an even footing with the defendant’s representative for the jury’s attention, you’re competing against a large, well-resourced political lobby so adept at manipulation of stupidity that it can essentially badger people into voting against their own interests, for the attention of morons and buffoons.

All you can do is keep saying what’s true, and hope that eventually enough people will listen to you that something can be done.

You may believe that you just ought to be able to tell that 50%+1 of the people to shut up and take their medicine, but the government just doesn’t work that way,

That must be why they stopped putting fluoride in the water after all those hysterical morons complained about skeletal fluorosis that, mathematically speaking, can’t possibly happen at such low concentrations.

If we can impose medication on people too fucktarded to deserve it, why can’t we impose the obviation of AGW on a species too fucktarded to deserve it?

Oh, that’s right. Geopolitics.

So far scientists haven’t been very successful in doing that, and I’m a big believer in trying to figure out why that is.

The same reason Pythagoras’ crazy shape-suppressing cult were more successful in selling their ideas to the Ionians than the Ionian scientists were.

You may believe that you just ought to be able to tell that 50%+1 of the people to shut up and take their medicine, but the government just doesn’t work that way, nor, I think, should it, for lots of reasons.

Why, that’s a preposterous amount of straw you got there.

Maybe people here would be a little more inclined to take you seriously if you didn’t start painting us like naïve authoritarians.

The “consensus” isn’t a matter of authority. When there are 20.000 studies that don’t bring the reality of AGW into question, it doesn’t mean they have an opinion and it should be accepted by fiat. It means a lot of scientists have studied this stuff, checked the facts, and they agree with AGW being true. It means that, if you want to show AGW is not true, you have to go against a mountain of evidence. Much like evolution, by the way.

Maybe people here would be a little more inclined to take you seriously if you didn’t start painting us like naïve authoritarians.

Perhaps you can enlighten me to the correct interpretation of

[Scientists haven’t convinced the general population of Global warming] Because normal people are too stupid to listen to experts, be they doctors, accountants, or scientists, if they feel threatened by the conclusions.

The subject is whether the government should do something about global warming, even if the majority of people cannot be convinced that it is necessary.

I’ll readily concede the intentions are good, but the clear implication here is that people should shut up and listen to the experts because the experts are right.

Even fully agreeing that the experts are right, it is hard to come up with a clearer example of benevolent authoritarianism. That is, the government should take some action because its necessary, regardless of whether people want it, because people are too stupid to know better.

Actually, pretty much everyone agrees that scientific consensus is important. Stephan Lewandowsky has shown that people are persuaded when it is demonstrated that a large majority of experts agree. Frank Luntz counselled the fossil fuel interests that it was important to downplay consensus. The Denialati attack Anderegg et al. vehemently–its 97% consensus figure is by far one of their most hated facts.

The problem is that while the basics of anthropogenic warming are fairly straightforward, the details are complicated, and because climate represents average behavior and deviations from it, the evidence is inherently statistical. Humans suck at statistics.

Finally, there is the fact that while we only have a few years left to take action so that we can avoid the worst consequences of climate, the consequences themselves will unfold slowly over decades and even centuries. This is not the sort of threat our psyches evolved to deal with–we always exaggerate spectacular, unfamiliar and seemingly immediate threats (e.g. terrorism) and downplay threats that seem remote or unavoidable (e.g. climate change or smoking related illness).

Yes, part of the problem is that people are stupid. More specifically, they are precisely the kind of stupid that doesn’t deal well with the types of threats posed by climate change. That is why the scientific method, scientific risk assessment and scientific consensus are important.

I’ll readily concede the intentions are good, but the clear implication here is that people should shut up and listen to the experts because the experts are right.

No, the implication is that people should be convinced to agree that the experts are right and let the expert’s testimony inform their own opinions, in the exact same way they have already been convinced to defer to the experts in all sorts of realms of public policy.

I’ll readily concede the intentions are good, but the clear implication here is that people should shut up and listen to the experts because the experts are right.

Right, any intelligent person listens to to the experts, like Medical Doctors if they want good medical advice, Attorneys if they want good legal advice, accountants if they want good tax advice, and scientists if they want good scientific advice. Dumb folks take such advice from their barbers, beauticians, mechanics, and preachers. And they wonder why they have high blood pressure and heart disease, legal problems, problems with the IRS. And they still think scientists are wrong since they contradict one another….

That is, the government should take some action because its necessary, regardless of whether people want it, because people are too stupid to know better.

Absolutely. If they weren’t stupid, they wouldn’t need paternalistic government.

Oh, and show me where private enterprise will spend billions of dollars to protect Norfolk, and then after another Sandy storm, be able to charge the protected folks $10,000, or whatever is required to pay off the investment. Government is the only way it can be done.

Derfinitely an impressive pie chart and not sure why you don’t usually like them, PZ, they generally work for me.

@61. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls :

Ben, your Juror argument is bogus in science. And you know that. While you may have to deal with ignorance and stupidity, you didn’t show it effected the science. Which it can’t. Only more science refutes science, and only ridicule causes people to question to their beliefs. You haven’t demonstrated otherwise. Evidence. You know, citations…(Emphasis added.)

I disagree with the bit in bold.

People question their beliefs for a whole range of reasons and ridicule may sometimes be one of them but its not the *only* reason and can sometimes be counter-productive.

Many years ago I was a climate contrarian myself and changed my views on that based on evidence and reason and online arguments.

PS. I’d also suggest you actually take the time to read what I’ve linked and what is being said there before you jump in calling people ignormauses John. I find it hard to believe you’re *that* quick a reader of those transcripts!

I think the same science and industry that helped get us into this mess is going to have to play a major role in getting us out of it as well.

Which isn’t to say we’re NOT going to have to do a lot more in other ways as well, we certainly are.

That is, the government should take some action because its necessary, regardless of whether people want it, because people are too stupid to know better.

The examples of quarantine and pest control are good examples here. In my city we are free of the two species of fruit fly that cause havoc in fruit growing in all other Australian capital cities. When fruit fly is found in fruit growing in any Adelaide suburb, there is no option. The Ag dept sends out teams and every single item of fruit, every tomato, every capsicum is stripped from plants, removed and destroyed. No options. No exceptions.

Same thing sort of thing happens at every international airport in Australia. You want to buy leather or wood or feather souvenirs overseas. Be prepared to lose them at quarantine or pay for fumigation if that’s even an option. Fail to declare them and be prepared to lose them and pay fines.

You don’t need to understand biohazards. You can’t claim that you’re more intelligent or more responsible than other people who have fruit in their gardens. It doesn’t matter if you still don’t understand what’s happening when your whole garden is bare of the items you were going to use for salads or sauces or pickles. The government decides – for your own good and for the good of everyone else. Same goes for faulty or dangerous toys. You might not even know what the risks or dangers are – too bad. Your shop has a few empty shelves.

“I know an old lady, who swallowed a fly,
I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps, she’ll die.

I know an old lady who swallowed a spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
But I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps, she’ll die.

I know an old lady who swallowed a bird.
How absurd to swallow a bird!
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
But I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps, she’ll die.

I know an old lady who swallowed a cat.
Fancy that – to swallow a cat!
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
But I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps, she’ll die.

I know an old lady who swallowed a dog.
What a hog – to swallow a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
But I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps, she’ll die.

I know an old lady who swallowed a goat
She opened her throat and swallow a goat!
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
But I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps, she’ll die.

I know an old lady who swallowed a cow.
I don’t know how she swallowed the cow.
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat,
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
But I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps, she’ll die.

I know an old lady who swallowed a horse…
“Is she dead?” “Of course.””

The subject is whether the government should do something about global warming, even if the majority of people cannot be convinced that it is necessary.

I’ll readily concede the intentions are good, but the clear implication here is that people should shut up and listen to the experts because the experts are right.

Even fully agreeing that the experts are right, it is hard to come up with a clearer example of benevolent authoritarianism. That is, the government should take some action because its necessary, regardless of whether people want it, because people are too stupid to know better. – Ben P.

This is a flagrant misrepresentation of what is happening in the real world, because it leaves out a key component: the well-organised and well-funded AGW denialist campaign of lies, including vile smears against individual scientists: funded largely by commercial interests, via right-wing lie factories (“think tanks”) such as the Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, American Enterprise Institute etc. ad nauseam, who employ or pay a large number of individuals to misrepresent the state of science. Details of this campaign are not hard to find, most of the prominent individuals are listed here, with their affiliations; or Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway’s Merchants of Doubt chronicles decades of right-wing and commercially motivated antiscience, culminating in the AGW denial campaign.

What governments should do is to combat this torrent of lies effectively. They should tell people the truth in clear, unambiguous terms, repeatedly and emphatically: that AGW is real, that it is the most serious problem facing the world, that tackling it is urgent, and that those who say otherwise are actuated by sheer greed or irrational ideologies. they should also show by their actions that they are serious: cut emissions from government itself, subsidise energy conservation and low carbon sources, enforce energy-conservation in new or extended buildings, give government tenders only to the most energy-efficient firms. If all this is done and after five years intensive public information campaigning people are still not convinced, then we will indeed be faced with the choice of trying to impose radical cuts in GHG emissions against public opinion, or twiddling our thumbs while civilization crumbles as its material basis deteriorates. You evidently prefer the thumb-twiddling option, while I find both highly undesirable, but if the situation arises would go with the first. Note that this doesn’t mean abrogating normal democratic procedures: in few democratic countries is the legislature bound to follow public opinion.

Of course I have no illusions that governments will do what they should; but there is an enormous amount they could and should do without outraging public opinion, let alone abandoning normal democratic processes. I’ve started spending some of my time lobbying for them to do it.

This happens to be a binary issue. Global warming either does or does not exist.

It is not the graph that implies all the rest of the studies support global warming. It is MATH. And logic.

I’m afraid not. whether global warming exists is binary, but a study to decide if it does, is not. There are three possible outcomes:

1. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it exists.

2. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it does not exist.

3. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to reach either of the first two conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

Talk about your logical fallacies. Religious faith mentioned in a scientific decision with conclusive scientific evidence is one of them. The deniers are those with religious type faith. That is the point that all the logicians and scientists are telling you.

I’m amazed at how reasonably intelligent people can come to be persuaded that anything in the contemporary world is a simple question of democratic freedom vs. authoritarian government intervention. We live in a world of immense corporate power. What we eat and drink (and how that’s produced), what we wear and do for leisure, how we treat our ailments (or don’t), what we use for transportation, what’s in our air and water, the products we desire, our self-image, how we understand politics,…all of this is heavily controlled or shaped by corporations. Denying the overwhelming evidence for AGW and the urgent need for public action is just parroting the authoritarian corporate line while pathetically believing yourself to be a maverick independent thinker standing for freedom. How can people be this naïve?

I’m afraid not. whether global warming exists is binary, but a study to decide if it does, is not. There are three possible outcomes:

1. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it exists.

2. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it does not exist.

3. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to reach either of the first two conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious. – paullockett

Utter crap. In general, this is the fallacy of the golden mean: that if there are two groups of people with strongly opposed views on an issue, the truth must lie somewhere between. It may be, and often is, that one group is right and the other wrong: see for example the examples of evolution, and of the link between smoking and cancer. In the specific case of AGW,
the science is quite clear, with multiple consilient lines of reasoning and evidence (from basic physics, paleoclimatic studies, current measurements of GHG levels and the pattern of temperature change, the good performance of climate models on the effects of volcanic eruptions) establishing beyond reasonable doubt that AGW is real, and an urgent problem.

Irrelevant gibberish. As I said in my initial comment, “Whether global warming exists is binary,” so I’m clearly not trying to imply that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And Nick Gotts wasn’t referring to your opinions about “whether global warming exists” as a golden mean fallacy, but about your opinions of BOTH SIDES operating on “faith”. A logician who can’t read is a fascinating thing.

Just another liar and bullshitter for the denialists. That’s what the evidence of your own words say.

Except they don’t. I’m not a denialist. The weight of the evidence seems to show that human actions are having an impact on the climate.

You assumed I was a denialist because you are precisely the sort of unscientific dogmatic who assumes that everybody must pick a side and defend it unquestioningly, even if evidence changes or something offered in support is flawed.

Nonsense posted in support of a valid position is still nonsense, which is precisely what your posts are.

You assumed I was a denialist because you are precisely the sort of unscientific dogmatic who assumes that everybody must pick a side and defend it unquestioningly, even if evidence changes or something offered in support is flawed.

Gee, where is your evidence I am being unscientific. Where is your evidence to back up any of your claims/idiocy? Where is the evidence I am being religious?

Nonsense posted in support of a valid position is still nonsense, which is precisely what your posts are.

Your posts are total nonsense, so you need to follow your own advice if you can’t produce the evidence. Which we both know you can’t, as you are lying and bullshitting.

I’m afraid not. whether global warming exists is binary, but a study to decide if it does, is not. There are three possible outcomes:

1. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it exists.

2. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it does not exist.

3. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to reach either of the first two conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

Paul the logician apparently believes:
1. That “reasonable certainty” is not already a step away from faith, compared to the “absolute certainty” that people who use faith usually have.
2. That “reasonable certainty” either isn’t attainable in science or hasn’t been attained on the issue of global warming, in order to conclude that the side who has used science to attain their “reasonable certainty” are relying on faith.
3. That the only alternative to “reasonable certainty” is complete agnosticism on the issue (instead, say, a “slight certainty” in either direction) and that anything short of saying “we can’t reach any conclusions” is unevidenced extremism.

I’m sure that all of that was supported with a series of logical arguments that he just decided to not bother us with on this day, for the sake of time. I’m sure it is all terribly uninteresting stuff, not anywhere near as significant as vomiting out his thesis and wagging a finger at us all.

Paul, if you had only limited yourself to something like this:

You assumed I was a denialist because you are precisely the sort of unscientific dogmatic who assumes that everybody must pick a side and defend it unquestioningly, even if evidence changes or something offered in support is flawed.

There would be no controversy here. But you weren’t simply talking about ignoring changes in evidence, or about a polarized in-group/out-group. You were talking about how anyone who is “reasonably certain” about global warming isn’t doing science and is relying on faith, just as much as those who are “reasonably certain” that there isn’t global warming in the face of evidence to the contrary. That was your misstep. Was it just a misstep or was it actually something you believe?

And Nick Gotts wasn’t referring to your opinions about “whether global warming exists” as a golden mean fallacy, but about your opinions of BOTH SIDES operating on “faith”. A logician who can’t read is a fascinating thing.

Nice try, but let’s look again at what Nick posted:

In general, this is the fallacy of the golden mean: that if there are two groups of people with strongly opposed views on an issue, the truth must lie somewhere between.

That is not referring to faith, but truth. Faith relates to why somebody holds a belief, truth relates its validity, which is precisely what I referred to.

You are a lying troll.
You are also a crackpot, a reality denier, and an AGW denier.

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

These are just a series of assertions without proof or data linked together. Using Hitchens rule, they may be dismissed without proof and data too. You are not a logician either.

3 Jul 2012 – Seventy-eight percent of those polled say global warming will be a serious problem if left alone, with 55 percent saying the U.S. government should do “a great deal” or “quite a bit” about it

The vast majority of people no longer deny global warming.

BTW, we don’t vote on reality.

Reality is what it is. Not too long ago people thought the earth was flat and orbited by the sun. Global warming denial is going the way of Geocentrism and the Flat Earth. For the same reasons. There will always be a few around, 60 million USAians are still Geocentrist after all, but they will be on the sidelines, the lunatic fringes.

Faith relates to why somebody holds a belief, truth relates its validity, which is precisely what I referred to.

Yeah, and Nick Gotts also mentioned the scientific evidence for why AGW is to believed in. Which would make being “reasonably certain” about AGW less reliant on “faith” than being “reasonably certain” that AGW isn’t real. Are you just intentionally ignoring that detail, or is not relevant to your suddenly idiosyncratic definition of “faith”?

And I say “suddenly idiosyncratic” because it was clear that you were likening faith to religious faith and contrasting it to science in your initial post. Any attempts to do the standard move that Christians do in playing the re-definition game, where faith is suddenly just “believing in something that one can’t be absolutely certain about” will be met with derisive laughter.

I see PL doesn’t think. Where is this solid and voluminous evidence that AGW isn’t happening? The point of the pie chart was to show that scientific conclusion is correct. But, as is typical of science, there are always someone chipping away at the edges. Science at work, and it doesn’t mean the theory is in real question.

Both AGW and evolution have solid and voluminous evidence to back up the theories. Since science doesn’t deal it absolutes, neither theory is confirmed with absolute certainty. But 99.9% certain is good enough for saying they are facts.

As a scientist and skeptic, I am always open to new evidence, unlike what the liar and bullshitter claims. So, where is this evidence I am ignoring? Point, don’t talk.

Faith relates to why somebody holds a belief, truth relates its validity, which is precisely what I referred to.

No, faith is required when there is no evidence for a belief. As a scientist, I have no faith in AGW or evolution. They are scientific conclusions based upon conclusive and voluminous evidence. Creationists and AGW deniers have faith, as there is no evidence to back up their beliefs. PL, you don’t understand basic logic.

The point of the pie chart was to show that scientific conclusion is correct.

Actually, it was more along the lines of showing that there is no controversy and that the scientists have come to a conclusion on the subject, not that the conclusion itself is correct. That’s a slightly different argument. This is a just a counter to the “science hasn’t really decided yet” brand of denialism, not to the “science has it ALL WRONG, listen to the talk radio hosts” brand of denialism.

Basically, you’ve posted nothing there, so I won’t waste my time with your trolling. I’ve tried to help you to better yourself, but you clearly don’t want to, so I’ll leave you to wallow.

First of all, you are the troll, I’m the regular. Lie one. Second, all you have presented is standard creobot fuckwittery that scientific conclusions are faith, like religious people have. Lie two. Nothing new. And when pressed to back up your assertions, you came up empty just like they do. Lie three. You have nothing from which to learn from. Whereas my pointing out the need to back up your claims with evidence, which is science in action, was a learning experience for you. But I suspect you are too arrogant to learn.

@110 anteprepro, your post is so riddled with erroneous conclusions that I can only conclude that you probably don’t understand what I’ve been saying

Paul the logician apparently believes:
1. That “reasonable certainty” is not already a step away from faith, compared to the “absolute certainty” that people who use faith usually have.

Wrong, I don’t.

2. That “reasonable certainty” either isn’t attainable in science

No, that is the whole damn point of science!

…or hasn’t been attained on the issue of global warming…

It has in some areas, but not in others. To those who don’t hold a ridiculously partisan position it is not one conclusion to be reached, but countless conclusions. That is is happening is reasonably certain, the extent less so.

…in order to conclude that the side who has used science to attain their “reasonable certainty” are relying on faith.

Wrong. I believe that science has allowed certain things to be determined with reasonable certainty, but that there are people who have adopted global warming acceptance or denialism as an article of faith and will not allow anything, including science or logic, to challenge it. That’s why, when I pointed out a false dichotomy in one thing offered in support of the existence of global warming, there were people who rather than apply reason and rationality, took it as a challenge to their dogma, assumed me to be a member of the rival denialist camp and resorted to abuse and swearing, rather than acknowledge that somethings offered in support of the existence of global warming will turn out to be invalid.

3. That the only alternative to “reasonable certainty” is complete agnosticism on the issue

I was talking about individual scientific tests. You’ve gone off on a tangent.

Paul, if you had only limited yourself to something like this … There would be no controversy here.

It would be nice if that were true, but as per my underlying point, there are those for whom anything but unquestioning acceptance of their position and everything in support of it is heresy.

You were talking about how anyone who is “reasonably certain” about global warming isn’t doing science and is relying on faith

No, I very clearly wasn’t. I said “some people.” You are claiming I said “all people.” That is grubby and sleazy.

I believe that science has allowed certain things to be determined with reasonable certainty, but that there are people who have adopted global warming acceptance or denialism as an article of faith and will not allow anything, including science or logic, to challenge it…. I said “some people.” You are claiming I said “all people.” That is grubby and sleazy.

Paul of the Past:

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

Vast majority =/= Some.

Concluding that “reasonable certainty” is faith (and not science) is not good argument.

Your current arguments are not the same bilge you came in here with.

You can’t use your mad logic skillz to rewrite what is clearly recorded here.

You are a lying troll. You are also a crackpot, a reality denier, and an AGW denier

Except that I don’t deny AGW and five comments before that comment of yours, I had stated that “the weight of the evidence seems to show that human actions are having an impact on the climate.”

You are precisely the kind of person I’ve been talking about. I suspect your thought process goes something like this:

1. AGW exists.

2. Anything said in support of AGW must be valid, because AGW exists.

3. Anybody who questions anything said in support of AGW is wrong and is therefore a denier.

4. Deniers are the enemy.

5. ATTACK!!!

Am I wrong?

It’s ironic that, of the four people replying to my comments and supposedly in support of science and reason, you, Beatrice and Nerd of Redhead have a default of “ignore the evidence, attack the heretic.” There is only anteprepro who shows any willingness to bring reason to the table.

The vast majority is some people. The vast majority is not all people. There is nothing wrong with that. If it troubles you so much, feel free to replace “some people” in my comment with “the vast majority of people.” It still stands.

Concluding that “reasonable certainty” is faith (and not science) is not good argument.

You are right, which is why I am glad I have never concluded that, or anything like it.

Your current arguments are not the same bilge you came in here with.

My arguments are exactly the same. Maybe my subsequent explanations have just made them clearer to you.

No, you fuckwit, of course it isn’t and I never said it was. You did however say that “the vast majority” were the people who rejected your Golden Mean, agnostic option. With the implication being that it was all of the people who rejected that option. Thus when I said “You were talking about how anyone who is reasonably certain about global warming isn’t doing science,” the only “all” implied is everyone in your “vast majority” . And your claim that the “vast majority” relies on faith still requires support. Your conflation of people being “reasonably certain” with having “faith” still requires support. Your conclusion that the people labeling you a denialist are these people who rely on “faith” requires support. Your conclusion that you are proven right about this “faith” based on the responses of two or three people is just naive.

Maybe my subsequent explanations have just made them clearer to you.

No, it has only made them more baffling. Which is part of why it is clear that you’ve been putting some distance between you and your original remarks.

Since your logic, thinking *snicker*, and definition of faith are as clear as mud, you have done nothing. You had nothing to begin with either. You definitely appear to have nothing cogent to say to us, so we have nothing we can learn from you.

I’m afraid not. whether global warming exists is binary, but a study to decide if it does, is not. There are three possible outcomes:

1. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it exists.

2. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it does not exist.

3. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to reach either of the first two conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious. – paullockett

Utter crap. In general, this is the fallacy of the golden mean: that if there are two groups of people with strongly opposed views on an issue, the truth must lie somewhere between – me

Irrelevant gibberish. As I said in my initial comment, “Whether global warming exists is binary,” so I’m clearly not trying to imply that the truth is somewhere in the middle. – paullockett

I have restored the context, so people can see that it is you that is producing irrelevant gibberish. The fact that most people reject your outcome 3 does not, as you claimed, show that we are dealing with “faith bordering on the religious”, because it is, in fact, rational to reject outcome 3 (and a fortiori outcome 2) in favour of outcome 1. If you accept that it is in fact rational to accept outcome 1, then you surely cannot, as a fully certified and paid-up Logician, want to maintain that accepting that outcome is evidence that one is operating on faith. So I concluded that you did not in fact accept the rational outcome 1, but held to the irrational outcome 2 and hence, were apparently employing the golden mean fallacy, since no impartial person reasonably acquainted with the scientific evidence could hold to outcome 2.

As indeed appears to be the case:

…or [reasonable certainty]hasn’t been attained on the issue of global warming…

It has in some areas, but not in others. To those who don’t hold a ridiculously partisan position it is not one conclusion to be reached, but countless conclusions. That is is happening is reasonably certain, the extent less so. – paullockett

That the extent is sufficient to require urgent action to curb greenhouse gas emissions is part of the expert consensus. Of course there are, as always, remaining uncertainties, but they do not in any way or to any extent detract from this requirement. It is as certain as any prediction of future events can be that “business as usual” will lead to dangerous and destructive climate change.

Of course there will be some who accept the scientific consensus – your outcome 1 – on grounds that one could reasonably call faith: those who think we’re making Gaia angry, for example. But one does not need detailed knowledge of a scientific issue to make a judgment that is not based on faith: knowing what the consensus of relevant scientific experts is, and accepting it because it is the consensus of relevant scientific experts, is not the same as faith, even if one knows no more. If planetary scientists tell me that Jupiter’s moon Europa has a subsurface ocean, it’s not a matter of faith that I take their word for it: it’s a matter of rational (although not uncritical) confidence in scientific methods and institutions. There are good reasons to expect that the consensus of relevant experts in most areas of science will be correct, or close to correct, much of the time. Conversely, to reject such a consensus, without very good reason, is irrational, and very often – as with AGW, as with evolution – a matter of faith.

3. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to reach either of the first two conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate)

What people are you talking about? You seem to have slipped from talking about conclusions scientists draw from their findings or those of others to the general population.

reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3,

Option 3 is an abstract, hypothetical possibility. That obviously hasn’t been the conclusion reached by experts in relevant fields on the basis of the evidence (which of course, like the evidence for evolution, doesn’t derive from any single study, as you well know).

shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

What precisely is the referent of “what we are dealing with”? Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that everyone outside the scientific community was accepting the scientific conclusions on faith, that would be irrelevant to the scientific conclusions based on the evidence themselves. Are you arguing that the consensus of scientists supporting AGW is based on faith? Are you challenging some aspect(s) of the actual scientific consensus? If so, which, and on what basis?

You did, by taking my statment about the vast majority of people and restating it as being about all people, as it the two were equivalent. I know you followed that up with an attempt to distance yourself from it, but it has no substance.

Also, I’m trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, so can you cut out the swearing. It adds nothing.

Your conflation of people being “reasonably certain” with having “faith” still requires support.

That’s your conflation, not mine. I’ve continually separated the two things, but you keep trying to tie them together. Being “reasonably certain” doesn’t require faith. You can achieve “reasonable certainty” through science. If anything, faith doesn’t result in “reasonable certainty” but “absolute certainty.”

Your conclusion that the people labeling you a denialist are these people who rely on “faith” requires support.

I’ve already explained it quite clearly.

The thing that started the attacks was when I pointed out that you can’t just assume that a study which doesn’t reject AGW accepts it. It was a perfectly reasonable clarification that the black section of the pie chart will contain some studies where the evidence wasn’t sufficient to draw a conclusion either way. Anybody driven by science and reason would have a response along the lines of “good point.”

What we saw from those people was a hostile response to the application of science and reason, because it didn’t work in support of their established belief. That is not science at work, but faith.

Which is part of why it is clear that you’ve been putting some distance between you and your original remarks.

I’ve been putting no distance. I stand by them just as much as when I made them.

Damn. When he first showed up talking about the existence of global warming, I thought it was a refreshing change from most denialists’ attempts to appear remotely reasonable by not flat out denying the existence of gw and just moving amongst a series of more minor denials. (Kind of like how OECs can make you almost miss YECs.) But this guy’s just run of the mill. Dull.

The fact that most people reject your outcome 3 does not, as you claimed, show that we are dealing with “faith bordering on the religious”, because it is, in fact, rational to reject outcome 3 (and a fortiori outcome 2) in favour of outcome 1.

Except that is not what I claimed. I can only assume that you left it so long to reply in order to try to misrepresent my argument by putting it out of context, but let’s look at what I was actually replying to:

Global warming = X.

Rejection of global warming = NOT X.

Lack of rejection of global warming = NOT NOT X.

NOT NOT X = X.

…

It is not the graph that implies all the rest of the studies support global warming. It is MATH. And logic.

There is no problem with rejecting option 2 and 3 in favour of outcome 1, if that is what the evidence supports. My point (as you know perfectly well) was that in any scientific study of the existence of AGW, there will be three possible outcomes – it exists, it doesn’t, or we didn’t have enough evidence to conclude either way. Therefore, the black section of the pie chart will contain not just studies that support the existence of AGW, but also those which couldn’t reach a strong conclusion based on the evidence they were studying.

Therefore, the black section of the pie chart will contain not just studies that support the existence of AGW, but also those which couldn’t reach a strong conclusion based on the evidence they were studying.

Sophistry. That which doesn’t refute AGW indirectly supports it. Welcome to science, not presuppsition and idiocy.

It’s perfectly obvious and shouldn’t be controversial.

No, you don’t understand the science and how science operates. Those of us who do, don’t have a problem making a conclusion. Only a fuckwitted idjit who doesn’t understand the scientific evidence and what it means will continue to blather that the evidence isn’t conclusive.

That’s your conflation, not mine. I’ve continually separated the two things, but you keep trying to tie them together. Being “reasonably certain” doesn’t require faith.

And yet you said that “the vast majority of people” who reject your statement 3, that statement being that we can’t say one way or the other that global warming is happening, the ones that accept your alternative options about being “reasonably certain,”, are relying on faith, not science. That is what you said. That is what everyone else is debating you about. But apparently I am the one who is blurring the line here.

You did, by taking my statment about the vast majority of people and restating it as being about all people, as it the two were equivalent.

I already explained that the only sense I was referring to “all” of anything, it was “all” of the people in the category of “the vast majority of people”. Deliberately misreading me is the way that you have “a reasonable discussion”? Fuck off. If you are getting paid for being a logician, you are being paid too much.

Option 3 is an abstract, hypothetical possibility. That obviously hasn’t been the conclusion reached by experts in relevant fields on the basis of the evidence

It will have been in individual studies, which is exactly what we are talking about. Look at the pie chart again. There are 24 studies which rejected AGW. Do you really not expect that will be others which resulted in the researchers saying “we looked at some evidence, the particular evidence we looked at didn’t really tell us enough to reach a solid conclusion.”

which of course, like the evidence for evolution, doesn’t derive from any single study, as you well know

And my whole point relates to those individual studies, as you well know.

Are you challenging some aspect(s) of the actual scientific consensus?

It was a perfectly reasonable clarification that the black section of the pie chart will contain some studies where the evidence wasn’t sufficient to draw a conclusion either way.

The problem here is that the overwhelming majority of the thousands of studies under discussion are not, as you imply, studies “to decide if [global warming]” does or doesn’t exist, just like the overwhelming majority of studies in the field of evolution aren’t done to decide whether or not it’s real. They’re studies of various aspects of the phenomenon, its sources, its future, and so on. To present them as you are is misleading. People aren’t going to conclude that their own single study is sufficient evidence for any certain conclusions about the existence of global warming, but the set of peer-reviewed studies that reject it is tiny and inconsequential.

No you didn’t fix it for me, because we were talking about the outcome of an individual study and in science, we didn’t reach a conclusion before we have completed the study.

That which doesn’t refute AGW indirectly supports it. Welcome to science, not presuppsition and idiocy.

And so we return to the original piece of ignorance which started the whole thing. Go and look up “false dichotomy” and learn something. You could just as easily take your statment and say of an inclusive piece of research: “that which doesn’t support AGW indirectly refutes it.” It is a fallacy either way around.

No, you don’t understand the science and how science operates. Those of us who do, don’t have a problem making a conclusion.

The vast majority (your words) of the studies support, either directly or indirectly, AGW. There may be one or two (possibly even three) papers which don’t draw a conclusion, but the number is so miniscule it can effectively be ignored.

The scientific consensus is that AGW is happening. There may be disputes about specific details and arguments about the range of warming, but the fact of global warming and the fact that it’s caused by human activities is not in dispute. The only people disputing AGW are those with ideological or commercial axes to grind.

See how simple that is? Even a logician should be able to follow this.

The problem here is that the overwhelming majority of the thousands of studies under discussion are not, as you imply, studies “to decide if [global warming]” does or doesn’t exist, just like the overwhelming majority of studies in the field of evolution aren’t done to decide whether or not it’s real. They’re studies of various aspects of the phenomenon, its sources, its future, and so on. To present them as you are is misleading. People aren’t going to conclude that their own single study is sufficient evidence for any certain conclusions about the existence of global warming, but the set of peer-reviewed studies that reject it is tiny and inconsequential.

There is an excellent point in there, which highlights another reason why the pie chart is flawed.

If somebody were to conduct research on AGW and conclude it didn’t exist, they would be less likely to do further research, as they have already dismissed the effect.

If somebody were to conduct research on AGW and conclude it did exist, they would be more likely to do further research, as they would tend to do further studies into its effects, extent, etc. Each of those studies would also be a study in the “didn’t reject AGW” sector.

Therefore, even if there were, hypothetically, equal numbers of scientists accepting and rejecting AGW, there would tend to be more studies in the “didn’t reject AGW” sector, as they would be the people conducting the most studies.

There is an excellent point in there, which highlights another reason why the pie chart is flawed.

No, they highlight your flawed analysis.

If somebody were to conduct research on AGW and conclude it didn’t exist, they would be less likely to do further research, as they have already dismissed the effect.

Wrong. More studies are needed to determine what is happening. Your ignorance of science is abysmal.

If somebody were to conduct research on AGW and conclude it did exist, they would be more likely to do further research, as they would tend to do further studies into its effects, extent, etc. Each of those studies would also be a study in the “didn’t reject AGW” sector.

This is what happened.

Therefore, even if there were, hypothetically, equal numbers of scientists accepting and rejecting AGW, there would tend to be more studies in the “didn’t reject AGW” sector, as they would be the people conducting the most studies.

NOPE. Science is about falsification of theories and ideas. Proper and solid studies that refute AGW take precedence over weak studies showing AGW. So, your inane analysis falls apart due to your ignorance and arrogance. Why are you still here? Your point is solidly refuted by evidence.

Do you really not expect that will be others which resulted in the researchers saying “we looked at some evidence, the particular evidence we looked at didn’t really tell us enough to reach a solid conclusion.”

No, because as I said in my previous post, there won’t be any single study that will provide enough evidence to reach a solid conclusion with any high degree of certainty about such a large and complex phenomenon, and that isn’t their purpose. That’s not how science works. It’s the development of evidence from numerous different lines of research pointing in the same direction consistently and ruling out other hypotheses. We can pretty safely conclude that if scientists did strong research that they firmly believed suggested that the existing consensus was wrong, they would say so. That would be Nobel-prize, world-changing material. It hasn’t happened and it’s not going to. Of course there are going to be researchers who don’t think their data lend themselves to a firm conclusion concerning their specific research question, but that’s not the same thing as holding that your data challenge the existence of global warming.

And my whole point relates to those individual studies, as you well know.

Since you’re failing to understand those, your point fails.

No, that’s just something which is assumed of me by the fanatics.

I’m not sure on what basis you’re calling anyone a fanatic. But to be absolutely clear: You aren’t questioning any aspect of, say, the IPCC report, or the level of certainty at which those conclusions are stated? Your previous remark about the extent of global warming suggests otherwise.

There may be one or two (possibly even three) papers which don’t draw a conclusion, but the number is so miniscule it can effectively be ignored.

Have you got any evidence to support those numbers? Given that we are talking about 13,950 studies, of which 24 rejected the existence of AGW, having at most 3 fail to reach a conclusion would be incredibly low, maybe too low.

The rest of your post is valid, but irrelevant to what I have been discussing.

Therefore, even if there were, hypothetically, equal numbers of scientists accepting and rejecting AGW, there would tend to be more studies in the “didn’t reject AGW” sector, as they would be the people conducting the most studies.

I understand paulockett now. He (?) is playing a “what if” game. His annoyance about everyone else is due to us taking his arguments seriously instead of the thought experiment he’s trying out. Okay, now it all makes a tiny bit of sense now and can be safely ignored as inapplicable to real life.

Have you got any evidence to support those numbers? Given that we are talking about 13,950 studies, of which 24 rejected the existence of AGW, having at most 3 fail to reach a conclusion would be incredibly low, maybe too low.

Did you follow the link in the OP. You don’t understand what evidence is and how to find it. That makes your analysis of this utter and total wankery.

Yes, I am thinking in order to reach conclusions based on presented information. That you consider it inapplicable to the real world is somewhat concerning.

You set up three choices and then quite reasonably reject one as being unsupported by evidence. Since the scientific consensus rejects another choice as being unreasonable, there’s only one choice left. So your dilemma has no relationship with the real world. QED.

Yeah Paullocket, I’m sure there’s only 0.0017% percent of papers that rejected AGW because they just didn’t want to find more evidence it doesn’t exist. Those 24 would surely have boosted it to maybe, like, 1% had they continued researching, and that’d be something for those faith-based AGW believers to really quake in their boots about!

The fact that most people reject your outcome 3 does not, as you claimed, show that we are dealing with “faith bordering on the religious”, because it is, in fact, rational to reject outcome 3 (and a fortiori outcome 2) in favour of outcome 1.

Except that is not what I claimed. I can only assume that you left it so long to reply in order to try to misrepresent my argument by putting it out of context- paullockett

Yes it is what you claimed; and since you attribute dishonesty to me without a shred of evidence – I “left it so long” because my whole life is not spent on this blog – I will not now hesitate to call you a liar. I already quoted @130 the claim of yours I originally responded to responded @96. Here it is once more:

I’m afraid not. whether global warming exists is binary, but a study to decide if it does, is not. There are three possible outcomes:

1. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it exists.

2. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it does not exist.

3. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to reach either of the first two conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious. – paullockett

What’s the point of lying about what you said, when anyone can go back and check it?

If somebody were to conduct research on AGW and conclude it didn’t exist, they would be less likely to do further research, as they have already dismissed the effect. – paullockett

Your production of drivel is impressive, if rather obviously based on immense ignorance of how science actually works in general, and the current situation in climate science in particular. If a scientist believed they had evidence that could overthrow the current expert consensus that AGW is real and an urgent problem, they would have extremely good motivation to publish it, and to continue and extend their work. Refuting the current consensus is an excellent way of making your mark as a scientist, and there are commercial and political interests that would be delighted to fund such work – if only there were any to fund.

And so we return to the original piece of ignorance which started the whole thing. Go and look up “false dichotomy” and learn something. You could just as easily take your statment and say of an inclusive piece of research: “that which doesn’t support AGW indirectly refutes it.” It is a fallacy either way around. – paullockett

No, it isn’t: because if AGW is not real, that means that the foundations of climate science are unsound – as a_ray_in_dilbert_space has already explained. The measured pattern of warming – e.g. the troposphere warming while the stratosphere cools, warming increasing with latitude, etc., could not be produced by any known or plausible mechanism other than greenhouse gas warming, if basic thermodynamics, and atmospheric and radiation physics, are correct. (If the measured pattern is wrong, no part of cliamte science can trust its data.) So effectively all work in climate science will rely on some part of climate science that must be wrong if the consensus on AGW is wrong. Most of the studies in the black part of the pie chart are not addressing the question: is AGW real? Instead, they are assuming that it is, as an inevitable corollary of assuming that the foundations of their discipline are sound and their data is not complete rubbish.

And there are those who don’t have enough evidence to believe in either.

Fuck me that’s brilliant, I’m going to go flying wherever I want now because I can apply gravity at will by not taking a side!

Why do unintelligent people feel the need to swear all the time?

It’s not complicated. There are things we might like to know, so we study them. That study might allow us to reach a conclusion or it may not. With gravity, we can be very confident it exists. When it comes to life on other planets, we have studied, but so far been unable to reach a solid conclusion.

No I am not. That’s part of the reason why I’ve attempted to stick to reasonable discussion, rather than insult, in spite of the vile behaviour of many of those I’ve been dealing with.

It’s apparent that you’re not smart enough or intellectually honest enough to participate in a discussion on this topic. Really – you’re wasting people’s time.

Read your #143 again and see if you can identify the stupidity of that argument. Then reread the posts in which I explained to you why this idea of hypothetical individual studies that don’t permit researchers to decide with certainty that gw does or doesn’t exist is a silly one. I’m not going to explain it again. Stop talking nonsense.

And stop claiming you’re not insulting people. You came in here claiming that people are operating on faith and just called people here fanatics.

For similar reasons why intelligent people like us to. Tone trolling, i.e., complaining about how something is being said, will not avail you on this blog. Quite the contrary, you’ll get more foul language dumped on you.

I swear very little but that’s just personal preference. Others here have different preferences and the blog owner doesn’t care if they do swear. Besides, how something is being said doesn’t detract from what is being said. It’spossible to be right and cursing or to be wrong and polite. In this particular instance, you’re wrong and polite. See how that works?

Why should I be polite to somebody who is not engaging honestly, which would require the possibility that they are wrong (and you are) be first and foremost in their thinking? You earn any bad language directed to you by your utter arrogance. And tone-trolling is the last refuge of those who know they are wrong, but can’t acknowledge that fact like people of honesty and integrity would do.

Yes it is what you claimed; and since you attribute dishonesty to me without a shred of evidence

I posted the evidence. To be fair, the root cause may be a lack of understanding rather than dishonesty. If so, I apologise.

Most of the studies in the black part of the pie chart are not addressing the question: is AGW real? Instead, they are assuming that it is, as an inevitable corollary of assuming that the foundations of their discipline are sound and their data is not complete rubbish.

Exactly. I’ve already made a similar point, for which I received a torrent of abuse from the bullies and thugs for whom I appear to be the resident hate figure. The chart doesn’t tell a complete story, because those studies don’t all provide evidence in support of AGW; many simply assume it is true.

It’s not complicated. There are things we might like to know, so we study them. That study might allow us to reach a conclusion or it may not.

How many of the 13,000+ studies under discussion individually, excluding all other evidence, do you think provide an adequate basis on which scientists could or should decide with certainty that global warming exists or doesn’t?

How many of the 13,000+ studies under discussion individually, excluding all other evidence, do you think provide an adequate basis on which scientists could or should decide with certainty that global warming exists or doesn’t?

Without studying each one, I can’t say. It also depends on what you mean by “global warming exists.” The effects of carbon dioxide have long been established, so you could conclude that releasing it into the atmosphere will have those impacts without any of those studies.

The wider point, which I hope doesn’t come across as pedantry, is that you can never know with certainty, you can just have a certain level of confidence. More studies should decrease the uncertainty.

The wider point, which I hope doesn’t come across as pedantry, is that you can never know with certainty, you can just have a certain level of con

There is sufficient evidence for the scientific conclusion to be made. You haven’t shown otherwise, just wanked that the evidence isn’t conclusive. Without a shred of evidence, which is required for a scientific debate, to back up you inane claims.

Exactly. I’ve already made a similar point, for which I received a torrent of abuse from the bullies and thugs for whom I appear to be the resident hate figure. The chart doesn’t tell a complete story, because those studies don’t all provide evidence in support of AGW; many simply assume it is true.

Yes, just like many who study various aspects of evolution and techniques for visualizing it, etc., proceed from the assumption that evolution is real. They support it. Shockingly, in both cases, reality has also been really supportive of these “simple” assumptions based on the weight of prior evidence.

There is sufficient evidence for the scientific conclusion to be made. You haven’t shown otherwise, just wanked that the evidence isn’t conclusive. Without a shred of evidence, which is required for a scientific debate, to back up you inane claims.

What seemed like an age ago, I posted ” The weight of the evidence seems to show that human actions are having an impact on the climate.”

Your attempts to justify AGW denialism aren’t working. Everyone here with the exception of you accepts the scientific consensus that AGW is happening and will continue to happen. Right now the major subject of contention is whether or not it’s too late to do anything effective about AGW.

Yes, just like many who study various aspects of evolution and techniques for visualizing it, etc., proceed from the assumption that evolution is real. They support it. Shockingly, in both cases, reality has also been really supportive of these “simple” assumptions based on the weight of prior evidence.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make there. It’s all true, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

The chart doesn’t tell a complete story, because those studies don’t all provide evidence in support of AGW; many simply assume it is true.

The assumption is part of the study’s underlying hypothesis and factors into the prediction that the study makes. IF that assumption were not correct, then the effect would cascade down through the entirety of the study, through the experimental design, and would become apparent in the results.

That the results do not show any such thing is SUPPORT that the assumptions made in the hypothesis are correct.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make there. It’s all true, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

Once again, you’re an idiot.

No one has claimed that every single one of those studies has added qualitatively new evidence in support of global warming (though many of them have). The research that proceeds on the implicit assumption that global warming exists obviously supports it in that sense. All of this research supports it in the sense that it found nothing contrary to it (at least that they claimed, as measured in this study), such that they didn’t explicitly reject it. It’s the same thing with evolution. To say that the overwhelming number of studies related to evolution have supported it is the same thing, even in the cases in which nothing qualitatively new is being produced and when the reality of evolution is implicitly accepted. If you think the evolution example is irrelevant, you’ll have to show how. The arguments you’re making are similar to the sorts of flawed handwavy garbage I’ve read from creationists.

*snickier* You don’t understand science and scientists. So you need to learn. Your presuppositions are invalid.

No, I won’t, because I don’t have the necessary information.

Nor to you have it here. All you have is wankery.

I’m not a troll or a fool. I was showing you courtesy by not assuming what you meant. Clearly that is wasted on the likes of you.

The evidence says otherwise. Curtesy is wasted on you, as you won’t and can’t admit you are wrong. And you can’t prove you are right with evidence. A scientist with honesty and integrity would have shut up 20 posts ago. So you show a lack of honesty and integrity, along with unwarranted arrogance by your continued posts.

The only people casting doubt on the scientific consensus are denialists. Since you are casting doubt on the consensus then it’s not unreasonable to think you’re a denialist. Your hypersketicism does not advance the arguments for AGW in the least, instead it shows that YOU’RE A FUCKING AGW DENALIST.

There, you caused me to swear and shout at you. Maybe it’ll get your attention that all you’re doing is following an AGW denialist script, which is why you’re seen as a denialist. This is so simple even a logician should be able to understand it.

@189 Rodney Nelson, I can see from your little rant that I called you perfectly.

The only people casting doubt on the scientific consensus are denialists. Since you are casting doubt on the consensus then it’s not unreasonable to think you’re a denialist.

I’m not casting doubt on the consensus, I’m pointing out that one piece of evidence being offered in support of the existence of AGW is flawed. Science and reason says that is how we should work, but fanatics don’t think that way. Any use of reason to them (you) is heresy if it contradicts anything offered in defence of AGW, even if what is offered in defence is unsound. What you don’t seem to realise is that, in rushing to defend any old rubbish, you harm your own cause, by giving your enemies weapons to use against you.

Your hypersketicism does not advance the arguments for AGW in the least, instead it shows that YOU’RE A FUCKING AGW DENALIST.

Once again, we see the fanatic’s rush to the false dichotomy – if your every move is not with us, supporting anything offered in support of the existence of AGW, you must be against us and a denier.

Maybe it’ll get your attention that all you’re doing is following an AGW denialist script, which is why you’re seen as a denialist.

To the partisan extremists, that’s almost certainly true. The irony is, if I posted these comments on a message board where most of the people commenting were deniers, I’d be getting exactly the same abuse in reverse.

Once again, we see the fanatic’s rush to the false dichotomy – if your every move is not with us, supporting anything offered in support of the existence of AGW, you must be against us and a denier.

When you spend your time arguing against the scientific consensus, then it’s not unreasonable to think you’re a denialist. That’s logic that even a logician could understand.

The irony is, if I posted these comments on a message board where most of the people commenting were deniers, I’d be getting exactly the same abuse in reverse.

On the contrary, they’d be welcoming you with open arms since you’re agreeing with them.

You’re not only a tone troll, you’re what’s called a “concern troll.” You’re pretending to agree with the consensus but just pointing out a tiny little flaw in it. We see creationists play this game all the time.

One other thing to consider, if everyone is disagreeing with you and nobody is supporting you, there is a possibility that we aren’t the ones who are wrong. Please note, logician, that I am not making the argumentum ad populum because I am not positing that we’re right but only suggesting that we are. You are free to show us wrong, something you’ve utterly failed to do before.

Which I don’t. I’ve argued against attempting to support the consensus with unscientific nonsense.

You’re pretending to agree with the consensus but just pointing out a tiny little flaw in it.

Except I’m not. The pie chart has not been used to form the consensus. The comment I originally responded to wasn’t used to form the consensus. All the subsequent comments I responded to weren’t used to form the concensus. In the grand scheme of things, they are all just irrelevant crap.

One other thing to consider, if everyone is disagreeing with you and nobody is supporting you, there is a possibility that we aren’t the ones who are wrong.

I considered it as a possibility, but dismissed it when I realised that everybody who was disagreeing with me was a complete moron.

Do you understand what people are trying to explain to you about how science works? Your options

1. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it exists.

2. We conclude with reasonable certainty that it does not exist.

3. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to reach either of the first two conclusions

are silly for the individual studies in question. People don’t do research on things like evolution or global warming expecting to make conclusions with reasonable certainty about the existence of evolution or global warming on the basis of a single study.

That’s the implication of the pie chart.

Only for ignorant people who don’t understand how science works and who haven’t actually read the accompanying article at the link. The implication is that the number of peer-reviewed published studies rejecting global warming is infinitesimal, and further information is provided in the text about the number of citations for these studies, showing them to be flukey. The rest of the studies accept/support global warming in precisely the same sense that this can be said about the body of scientific research related to evolution.

In any event, you’ve struck out on my IPCC question, and on the basis of that and other evidence I conclude that you’re dishonest and won’t be engaging with you further.

So are you actually going to use science to show why it takes faith to say that AGW is correct, or are you just going to act like a buffoon all day?

It doesn’t. I’ve never claimed it has. That’s just a straw man set up by a bunch of morons. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was a half decent straw man, but as I’ve made it clear that I accept the existence of AGW on the basis of science, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

I expect a full apology in your next post, since you claim to be polite.

Paul Lockett,
The problem with your argument is that anthropogenic climate change is not an “object of study”. It started out as a prediction 117 years ago. The warming has been confirmed beyond all doubt–not just all reasonable doubt. That the warming is due to greenhouse gasses is beyond any reasonable doubt–it has all the temporal, seasonal and longitudinal dependence we expect, and the tropospheric cooling takes place simultaneously with stratospheric cooling. This last is diagnostic of greenhouse warming.

So, in this case, there really are not, scientifically, two sides to the question, let alone three.

As to the graphic, I am afraid you are mistaken there as well. As anthropogenic climate change is an inescapable consequence of the standard model of Earth’s climate, any paper that uses or assumes that model affirms anthropogenic climate change at least tacitly. If a paper is assuming some other model, it would need to state this in its methodology section, as otherwise it would be misleading and irreproducible.

Logic is fine, Paul, but this is a matter of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence excludes 2 of your original possibilities.

I would also note that the papers that question anthropogenic causation are a very sad lot. Several are now given as an exercise to undergrads in intro climate science classes so that they can spot the errors and fallacies.

Climate science has a consistent paradigm. Anti-science in this field is predicated only on the proposition “Anything but CO2.”

That’s because you said that if I didn’t respond, you’d consider me unworthy of engagement. Take the hint.

But you continued to respond to my posts, so a bit of a mixed=message hint. I dealt with enough of your type at Deltoid to know that’s an excuse, in any event. But continuing to argue did give you further opportunities to display your dishonesty and foolishness, so there’s that.

The warming has been confirmed beyond all doubt–not just all reasonable doubt. That the warming is due to greenhouse gasses is beyond any reasonable doubt

Exactly as I have said.

As to the graphic, I am afraid you are mistaken there as well. As anthropogenic climate change is an inescapable consequence of the standard model of Earth’s climate, any paper that uses or assumes that model affirms anthropogenic climate change at least tacitly.

You’ve completely agreed with one of my points, then told me I am mistaken. Unbelievable!

Logic is fine, Paul, but this is a matter of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence excludes 2 of your original possibilities.

Only because you’ve deliberately taken it out of context. I was very clear that those were the three options which existed for an individual study, in reply to a comment which presented a false dichotomy. You’re vigorously beating a straw man.

I wanted to comment on the “binary” argument — that global warming is either real or not real, and all evidence must either support or deny it.

Have you actually spoken to many genuine GW deniers? The best analogy I can come up with is that they’re like soldiers defending a series of redoubts. When one redoubt is in danger of being overrun, they pack up their kit, scramble back a bit, and dig in again.

The first redoubt was that global warming doesn’t exist, and that we’ve just had a bit of a hot spell due to, oh, sunspots or something. That one is pretty much blown up and empty now, though there are probably a few stragglers still occupying a few of the tunnels.

The current redoubt that they’re fortifying is “Yes, we’re going through a major warming period, but we’re still not as hot as we’ve been in the past. Besides, the amount of carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere doesn’t amount to all that much. This is just a normal variation. And there are other causes for some of the problems we’re seeing. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting because of local deforestation, not warming.” I had an argument with one of those just last week.

After they’ve been forced out of that one, they will then fall back to “OK, maybe our carbon output is contributing a little bit to the natural warming cycle, but warming isn’t all bad — it’s even helpful to farmers in Canada. So there’s no economic payoff in trying to cut fossil fuels.”

And after that one falls, the final one will be “OK, we’ve screwed up the planet, but it’s too late to stop it, and nothing we can do will help.”

Anyway, my point is that we should be aware of which of the redoubts our opponents are occupying. If we pile on lots of evidence that the earth is warming, they’ll just say, “Well I ADMIT the earth is warming right now, silly boy.” Our argument probably won’t help much at all.

I’ve argued against attempting to support the consensus with unscientific nonsense.

Here’s what Powell writes:

Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public. [my emphasis]

That’s his conclusion; he’s trying to address the misperception that there’s widespread disagreement amongst scientists. Anyone who thinks the review is unscientific nonsense that doesn’t support that conclusion can try to make that case. Paul has failed dismally.

Anyway, my point is that we should be aware of which of the redoubts our opponents are occupying.

This is the kind of partisan language I dislike – the concept of an opponent in science, certainly in this context, feels wrong.

The substance of your comment is sound, but shouldn’t we be taking steps to provide evidence against those redoubts anyway? If the evidence is there, excellent. If not, isn’t the “opponent” just providing an alternative hypothesis which we should want to explore scientifically anyway, rather than dismissing it out of hand because it has come from the wrong person?

If people still disagree with you in spite of the evidence, rather than in the absence of the evidence, there’s not much you can do, but dismissing alternatives without the supporting evidence to do so is when it becomes an issue of faith.

Have you actually spoken to many genuine GW deniers? The best analogy I can come up with is that they’re like soldiers defending a series of redoubts. When one redoubt is in danger of being overrun, they pack up their kit, scramble back a bit, and dig in again.

I’ve seen them do it in the space of about a hundred comments.* They’ll even do it in “reverse” – talking about how the questions are about the extent of the warming and later suggesting that the earth is cooling.

*Might be a fun contest: who can find the shortest jump by a denialist from claiming to accept some element of AGW to challenging it.

Who the fuck are you to tell us what type of language to use? Who gives a shit what you like or don’t like?

but dismissing alternatives without the supporting evidence to do so is when it becomes an issue of faith.

What scientific alternatives? That is your problem, there aren’t any scientific alternatives. Just like creationism and ID are not scientific alternatives to evolution. They are religious alternatives. All the AGW alternatives are based on denial of facts, as you won’t admit.

This is the kind of partisan language I dislike – the concept of an opponent in science, certainly in this context, feels wrong.

The substance of your comment is sound, but shouldn’t we be taking steps to provide evidence against those redoubts anyway? If the evidence is there, excellent. If not, isn’t the “opponent” just providing an alternative hypothesis which we should want to explore scientifically anyway, rather than dismissing it out of hand because it has come from the wrong person?

If people still disagree with you in spite of the evidence, rather than in the absence of the evidence, there’s not much you can do, but dismissing alternatives without the supporting evidence to do so is when it becomes an issue of faith.

I failed to convince somebody who has no willingness to be convinced of anything. Nobody else could have any more success with somebody so dogmatic.

Error and lie: we at a science blog can be convinced of a lot, but it requires EVIDENCE, not sophistry. You have no evidence, and your sophistry is mental wankery. There is no reason to listen to lies and bullshit. That is why you are being ignored, rebuted, and treated with contempt. Contempt you so richly deserve by not understanding how you needed to do things.

Who the fuck are you to tell us what type of language to use? Who gives a shit what you like or don’t like?

If you weren’t such a total moron, you would understand that me expressing a dislike for something is not the same as telling you can’t do it. I have a dislike of you pound your fists on your keyboard to post inane drivel. I’ve not tried to stop you.

What scientific alternatives? … All the AGW alternatives are based on denial of facts, as you won’t admit.

How hard is this? As I said “if the evidence is there, excellent.” If you’ve put someone in a position where they have to deny facts, you have that evidence.

Paul, if the question the graphic were addressing were an empirical one, your position would have merit–yes, there would be a possibility that the evidence could be indeterminate.

However, anthropogenic climate change is a prediction of a theory–an inevitable consequence of that theory. So the question is whether a paper presumes the predominant/consensus theory of Earth’s climate. The answer there is binary–yes or no.

You are asking the wrong question–namely whether the evidence confirms the hypothesis. In that case, the answer is clearly affirmative, but it is based on empirical evidence rather than logic.

I’m certainly not being ignored. I’m just being abused by morons who can’t cope with people refusing to kiss their arses.

Who says you have to do that? But you come to a science, where professional scientists like myself and A-Ray reside, and pretend you can tell us how science operates, how it is done, what is the status of the latest research, without knowing any the above. And arrogantly think we will kiss your ass for a lesson in fuckwittery. Not happening. The next step for you is to claim victory and flounce. Just like all the denialists, creobots, IDiots, and other forms of anti-scientific thought.

So the question is whether a paper presumes the predominant/consensus theory of Earth’s climate. The answer there is binary–yes or no.

Although not a significant part of the argument, I’d say not necessarily, but that aside, your point supports mine. As I said, the pie chart is constructed in a way that implies that only 24 studies reject AGW and therefore the rest validate it, when in reality, what they are doing is assuming it to be true.

Paul,
Since anthropogenic warming is an inevitable consequence of the consensus model, any paper that does not explicitly reject the consensus model does implicitly affirm it–since no paper is free of modeling. So, in fact the graphic paints the situation clearly.

As I said, the pie chart is constructed in a way that implies that only 24 studies reject AGW and therefore the rest validate it, when in reality, what they are doing is assuming it to be true.

As A_Ray said above, what part of how science works don’t you understand? All of it, it seems. You can’t lecture real working science on the scientific details as A_Ray told you. You will lose every time. Learn some humility. You aren’t as smart as you think you are, and need to listen to experts rather than to try to lecture them.

any paper that does not explicitly reject the consensus model does implicitly affirm it … So, in fact the graphic paints the situation clearly.

Not really, because of the fact it is implicitly affirmed.

As an example, we could produce papers which assume the moon is made of cheese and model it’s size, weight and motion based on that assumption. I could then produce a pie chart showing the proportion of studies which reject the idea that the moon is made of cheese, implying that our studies show it to be made of cheese. It would not be an honest presentation.

Ok, you can be an expert. Go and make yourself a little shiny badge with “expert” on it.

No, that is what you need. I have 35+ years experience. Unlike fuckwits like you, I have 35 years of experience, instead of 35 one-years worth of experience. Care to play some more, or just declare victory and flounce?

Anybody on that list wouldn’t be fool enough to pull what PL has done here today.

Ridiculing the nonsense posted by a self-proclaimed “expert?” Maybe not; it is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but occassionally, it is nice to unwind by doing something which isn’t too demanding.

Most of the studies in the black part of the pie chart are not addressing the question: is AGW real? Instead, they are assuming that it is, as an inevitable corollary of assuming that the foundations of their discipline are sound and their data is not complete rubbish.

\

Scientific studies in non-climate fields assume climate change because, in many, many cases, the data do not make any sense otherwise. The species of toad you are studying migrates up in elevation on the lone mountain peak where they live. You’re a veterinarian and pets start showing up with Lyme disease where they didn’t before. You’re a city planner and you have to plan for floods formerly called 100- or 500-year floods coming once or twice a decade now.

Because, Paul, you’ve shown that whatever level you’ve achieved, or not achieved, you apply it like a student who did poorly in the logic portion of a math survey class designed for non-majors. You’ve learned nothing about science. Whether you are, as you implied at first, a logician, or whether your backpedal is the more accurate description of your status, your contributions to the discussions above don’t speak favorably of you.

Paul: you started by making foolish claims about what, in your opinion, the graphic and related article showed. You continued on and made several stupid statements about why people who deny climate change do so, you were schooled repeatedly on why your comments about the operation of science were wrong yet you continued repeat the same incorrect assertions. The fact that you are too fucking stupid to realize when you are wrong is not the problem of others (except when you prattle on), it is yours.

Next time Paul, try telling the truth, and listening to people who understand issues. You pass yourself off as one of those who, despite all the evidence, blunders along on your own ignorant little way.

One final clue: it isn’t just Americans who have come to realize that your claims indicate you willingly ignore facts you don’t like: that is clear to all. Your pompousness is astounding.

I’m neither, but being British, I’m used to a calmer level of discourse.

I suspect that it is due to us not having a significant public religious culture, with no real belief in creationism et al, but were I to have posted the same comment I began with on a predominantly British site, it would have been more likely to have prompted open discussion, rather than the rabid tribalism that is more common in the USA.

Had I been aware at the outset, I would have made more allowance for cultural differences.

, but were I to have posted the same comment I began with on a predominantly British site, it would have been more likely to have prompted open discussion, rather than the rabid tribalism that is more common in the USA.

Believe whatever you want, but the British regulars condemned your fuckwittery very quickly and to the point. You had nothing intelligent to say all day due terminal arrogance and vapidity.

I’m imagining your beaming little face there, proud as punch with your badge, getting to play at being an expert.

Why? You’ve been delusional all day, not me. I just told you what an idjit you were for trying to tell experts what they should believe. All you need to do is to fade into the bandwidth like a good troll should. Announce your flounce, stick it, and we can rate the content of the last post…

Believe whatever you want, but the British regulars condemned your fuckwittery very quickly and to the point.

That might well be right. I suspect the site, given the mentality of the bulk of the posters, would have attracted them as they were actively seeking out tribalism, rather than intelligent debate. It’s not something that overly concerns me.

paul, debate was intelligent, and on target, until you began spewing your immensely stupid comments. how fucking clueless can you be? (Let me anticipate your response: “I’m not clueless, everyone else there is clueless.”)

Have you made yourself a “real scientist” badge to go next to you “expert” badge? Good for you.

No badges, which are for losers like yourself. Flounce means dramatic announcement prior to leaving. Good trolls stick the flounce, like good acrobats stick the dismount. Bad trolls keep returning, like bad chili….

Paul said: “As an example, we could produce papers which assume the moon is made of cheese and model it’s size, weight and motion based on that assumption.”

Actually, unless the standard theory of lunar composition were that it was cheese, this would have to be stated explicitly. Assumption of the standard theory generally need not be stated. In fact, it would be quite rare to make such a statement.

So, in fact, the situation IS binary, not ternary as you imply.

I would suggest that a logician would admit when he was wrong. Not to do so would make one a sophist.

Actually, unless the standard theory of lunar composition were that it was cheese, this would have to be stated explicitly. Assumption of the standard theory generally need not be stated. In fact, it would be quite rare to make such a statement.

The fact that the vast majority of people (on both sides of the debate) reject the uncertainty which exists in option 3, shows that what we are dealing with is predominantly not science, but faith, bordering on the religious.

When you lead off with crap like this here, you don’t make any friends.
One side accepts the evidence. This includes the vast majority of those people who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate. The other side not only clings to any lingering shred of uncertainty (which pretty much always exists in science) to justify doing nothing.
No, dumbass, it’s not religious faith. It’s the weight of the fucking evidence.

I was attempting to accomodate you, because you wanted to approach the argument from a particular angle and it made no difference to my point.

Only a delusional and arrogant fool would say that. He refuted your ass seven ways from the first day of the week…But then, self awareness and introspection is low from trolls such as yourself. Until you can admit you are wrong, you can’t say anything intelligent.

Something else which should be noted which I didn’t see mentioned is the fact that even when a study implicitly assumes the truth of what it’s based upon this will inevitably lead to inconsistencies with data elsewhere if this assumed truth is in any way flawed. Therefore if we’re to believe the vast majority of these papers to be completely irrelevant here then we’re to believe that either:

A) Climate scientists have miraculously avoided studying anything which would reveal the gaping holes that sink their battleship

or

B) They are fudging the data and turning blind eyes to each other’s data manipulation in order to preserve their “faith”

To simply hand-wave away the overwhelming number of papers on the grounds that don’t each use the exact same methodology in order to reach the exact same conclusion on the exact same subject ad nauseum is pure nonsense. If the premise is flawed then it won’t work in application, period.

As individuals, I’ve met plenty of not-nice Americans, too. And I’d hesitate say Americans are any worse than any other “culture” for descending rapidly—we’ve our pet crazinesses, but not much more so than any other “culture”.

Which is irrelevant. The Pharyngula Horde is not entirely American, nor are the Americans here the “typical” Americans, nor is global warming an American specialty. If anything, rabid denial of warming is done by a smallish sector of Americans, lofty explanations done by another, while the vast muddle tend to listen to the loudest.

So this group tends to be loud back, and it’s okay, because this is just the comment section of a biology blog, not the National Academy. Plus, Pharyngula is noisy and rude, that’s what we do.

We’ve also done you before, or at least a dozen just like you. We’ve seen the tone trolling, the this-is-no-way-to-do-science, the sneers and the fake politeness. You and your ilk have been here, and you’ve been wasting your time. You are NOT going to change anyone’s mind, here.

If you want to believe that your failure is because we are a bunch of closed-minded rude rubes, you go right ahead. Just as long as you go.

So as well as generic insults, you mock physical disability. What a real class act you are.

No, the Redhead has suffered a stroke and is disabled, so I don’t do disabled remarks. Your only excuse is your arrogance which made you think you were right when you weren’t even in the ball game, hence your deafness to being totally refuted. Which you were time and time again. With your arrogance and ego preventing the obvious conclusion, which is YOU WERE WRONG.

I’ll tell you what PL, I’ll apologize for using the word deaf, if you can show me a word that means you were deliberately not listening to what people were telling you time and time again that is effective as deaf. Your turn. What were you?

You and your ilk have been here, and you’ve been wasting your time. You are NOT going to change anyone’s mind, here.

I reached that conclusion a while ago. I assumed at the time it was due to people being stubborn. Now I suspect it’s because there isn’t a mind to change. I suspect the bulk who remain here, making no effort to engage on the original topic and just dishing out insults towards me are doing so as way to compensate for whatever is lacking in their lives.

Actually its due to this being a science blog where EVIDENCE, not your fuckwitted OPINION, is required. You presented no evidence, and thought your OPINION would be taken as gospel. Delusional thinking on your part.

You’re either sorry for using a physical disability as an insult, or you aren’t. A conditional apology is worse than no apology at all and highlights what a vile person you clearly are. Quite frankly, I don’t care enough about what you have to say to be bothered whether or not you apologise.

I’ve encountered your sort before – keyboard warriors who are always first on the scene to dish out the most aggressive and unpleasant insults on the web, but would piss down their own legs at the thought of doing it face to face.

Then you should have no problem describing a word to state you were deliberately ignoring the scathing rebuttals of your idiocy. Why aren’t you doing that. Because you can’t. All else is bullshit, and you know that. You were deaf to accurate rebuttals of your idiocy, end of story. Prove otherwise with other words to describe your ignoring the rebuttals.

No, Paul. You are saying the figure is misleading because it presents only 2 possibilities. I pointed out that there are in fact only 2 possibilities

1)Accept standard model
2)Reject standard model

You agreed.

So, how, pray tell, is the figure misleading.

If in fact you are saying the figure depicts a binary situation in a binary fashion, it would seem to me that it is in fact YOU who have changed your previous position–e.g. that the figure was misleading.

41 a_ray_in_dilbert_space, my doctor provides me with a professional diagnosis, not a petulant insult.

A_Ray is a doctor. Of physics. Same as others that responded to your fuckwittery. Degrees doesn’t mean politeness. Your lack of acknowledgement of your refuted arguments guarantees your being reviled with appropriate swear words. Honesty is not on your list of virtues.

Since you can’t and won’t describe your purposeful lack of hearing/comprehension, you are a total big fucking shit, smelling up a township.

As you are clearly too stupid/trollish to read your own comment, which I previously referred to, I’ll repost the relevant section – you said “deliberately not listening.” In order to ask for a term, you provided one in the question, you ridiculous imbecile!

You’re clearly just trolling your way around the fact you used an incredibly vile insult, but you don’t have the strength of character to hold your hand up.

In biology, nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution. If we didn’t have evolution we’d be like “WTF? Why is this like that? Why are these similar? Why are these so different? Are these related? What caused this?” It would be a world of confusion.

Similarly, nothing in modern climatology or meteorology would make sense except in the light of AGW. It is an assumed fact in the background, which is why papers don’t openly acknowledge it (or may not do things other than pay it passing mention). However, if you were to refute a background fact, you’d have to address it directly.

I know a lot of fellow scientists out there get this, but sometimes the point may be difficult to get across.

As an example, we could produce papers which assume the moon is made of cheese and model it’s size, weight and motion based on that assumption.

Faulty analogy.

The moon being made of cheese is not, in any way, a prediction based on our understanding of astronomy. Papers which assume the moon is made of cheese eventually will hit a brick wall of inconsistencies with data from astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, cheese-making AND what we actually saw there when we went to the moon.

Anthropogenic global warming is a predicted consequence of our understanding of climate. A vast majority of papers accept global warming precisely because they accept the current model of climate and don’t find any inconsistencies. If a paper rejects global warming, it’s positing that everything we knew about climate in the last 117 years is wrong. They better show how.

Justin, the main argument here is between those who claim that pointing out that the scientific evidence for the existence of AGW is as strong as for any other scientific claim and that surveying the scientific literature shows this to be the case is a compelling argument, and those who claim that this overwhelming consensus is not a good argument (never mind compelling!) to those who are in denial of the reality of it.

I note that paullockett in particular doesn’t deny that this is the case, but cannot bring himself to repudiate the claim that pointing out this consensus exists is a poor argument to adduce to denialists.

Justin, the main argument here is between those who claim that pointing out that the scientific evidence for the existence of AGW is as strong as for any other scientific claim and that surveying the scientific literature shows this to be the case is a compelling argument, and those who claim that this overwhelming consensus is not a good argument (never mind compelling!) to those who are in denial of the reality of it.

I don’t see that argument occuring at all. You’ve got one person arguing against a bad use of statistics and another group using that fact to erroneously assign a set of beliefs to him.

I’ve read every comment and what I can’t wrap my head around is the fact that paullocket, while having had his ass handed to him over and over, fails to recognize that he’s not only proved that he is most certainly NOT a logician, but that he’s not very smart, either.

I have to wonder if he’s lying purposefully in order to troll, or if it’s just ego driving him to act this way? Perhaps a combination of the two?

[1] You’ve got one person arguing against a bad use of statistics and [2] another group using that fact to erroneously assign a set of beliefs to him.

I quote from the piece to which the OP links:

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

1a. Do you dispute that the OP links to an article that addresses the claim that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming?

1b. If not, then how does the graphic not demonstrate the claim that there is no significant disagreement among scientists?

1c. If it is not the case that it does not, in what sense is it a bad use of statistics?

2. This is an irrelevance.

(Amusingly, there is a group (everyone but you) disputing one person (you) — do you dispute that the evidence in this thread is that there is overwhelming consensus that your position is flawed? ;) )

No, Paul, you *think* you’re smart. Nothing you’ve said here could be used as proof that you’re smart. Not a jot or a tittle of it. As a matter of fact, most of what you written in the comment section of this post makes you seem rather stupid and more than a little ignorant of the workings of science, if not the world in general.

People believe all kinds of ridiculous bullshit about themselves. I know a guy who thinks he’s an elf. That doesn’t make him an elf. You *think* you’re smart. That doesn’t *make* you smart. It just makes you someone who buys into his own egotistical bullshit.

1b – The presentation is ambiguous in such as way that it will tend to imply more than that, as I said earlier.

do you dispute that the evidence in this thread is that there is overwhelming consensus that your position is flawed?

Yes, because a meaningful consensus would have to be based on substance. The bulk of what is coming back to me is swearing and insults unrelated to the topic and a significant chunk of the rest is refuting opinions which have been ascribed to me, rather than actually being held by me.

paullockett @361, the only implication is that only a minuscule proportion of peer-reviewed articles explicitly disagree the consensus; surely if there were substantial disagreement, this would be evinced via explicit disagreement.

(Unless you believe one disagrees with something by keeping silent about that something)

I quote ARIDS @211 above, “As anthropogenic climate change is an inescapable consequence of the standard model of Earth’s climate, any paper that uses or assumes that model affirms anthropogenic climate change at least tacitly.”

(Nonetheless, it is good that you explicitly acknowledge that you believe that only explicit affirmation constitutes agreement with the consensus, perverse as that claim may be)

—

Yes, because a meaningful consensus would have to be based on substance.

No, it wouldn’t — at least, not according to common definition and usage (it means group agreement (or literally, ‘common feeling’)) — but please, feel free to show me wrong via citation or reference.

I’ve seen nothing from you that would indicate you were trying to add anything meaningful or valuable to a discussion of the post. All you’ve done so far is make a vain attempt to argue an untenable position.

It’s really time you give up. You’ve been at it for a little over a day at this point and you’ve added nothing of substance, offered no proof for any of your assertions and succeeded in becoming a laughingstock amongst the more intelligent regulars here.

Anyhoo, I just popped in to this discussion to poke a little fun at you and with that done I’m outta here, as the kids say.

the only implication is that only a minuscule proportion of peer-reviewed articles explicitly disagree the consensus

That is what the words say. The graph, due to the lack of labelling of the larger part, leaves it open to the interpretation that the other studies provide effective validation, rather than taking it as an assumption.

Also, the methodology used does not allow the assumption that the non-rejecting studies take AGW as an assumption, although the ambiguity in the graph means that it isn’t explicitly claimed that they do.

paullockett, my contention was “the only implication is that only a minuscule proportion of peer-reviewed articles explicitly disagree the consensus; surely if there were substantial disagreement, this would be evinced via explicit disagreement.”.

(You quote and respond to my first clause, but conspicuously ignore the second. How is that not quote-mining?)

The graph, due to the lack of labelling of the larger part, leaves it open to the interpretation that the other studies provide effective validation, rather than taking it as an assumption.

Are you familiar with the concept of the complement of a set? ;)

Also, the methodology used does not allow the assumption that the non-rejecting studies take AGW as an assumption, although the ambiguity in the graph means that it isn’t explicitly claimed that they do.

Again: the methodology (as you put it) is to quantify the proportion of peer-reviewed studies which reject AGW.

Again: The issue being addressed is that surveys reveal that the population at large believe that there is substantial scientific dispute as to the reality of AGW.

Again: The only way you can hold to your opinion is if you believe that substantial scientific disputation of some claim involves the vast majority of those who dispute that claim keeping silent about their disagreement with that claim.

surely if there were substantial disagreement, this would be evinced via explicit disagreement.”.

(You quote and respond to my first clause, but conspicuously ignore the second. How is that not quote-mining?)

Because I assumed it rhetorical and you wouldn’t actually expect me to reply to something self-evident. As you’re being pedantic – I agree with your second clause. Is that better?

Again: the methodology (as you put it) is to quantify the proportion of peer-reviewed studies which reject AGW.

Again: that is what the words say – the graph, due to the labelling, is ambiguous.

Again: The only way you can hold to your opinion is if you believe that substantial scientific disputation of some claim involves the vast majority of those who dispute that claim keeping silent about their disagreement with that claim.

Again: no it isn’t, because that isn’t my opinion, it is an opinion you have falsely assigned to me.

You’re reading it wrong. By “eventually”, I don’t mean that “Cheese Moon Theory” would even become a thing; rather, cross-evidence would immediately relegate such a paper to the dustbin where it belongs. Papers which assume Cheese Moon would make no sense in light of our current data.

That’s not analogous to AGW at all.

A better analogy would be the Theory of Evolution. Most work in biology today assumes that evolution happens and the ToE is accurate. Why wouldn’t they? You don’t need to rediscover the wheel every time you want to make a car. If the ToE is false, then it will show in the data, because cross-evidence will stop working.

The graph, due to the lack of labelling of the larger part, leaves it open to the interpretation that the other studies provide effective validation, rather than taking it as an assumption.

There is no functional difference. The papers which take AGW as an assumption do provide effective validation, because they wouldn’t jive with the data if our model of climate – and AGW by extension – wasn’t accurate.

You’re imagining the far-fetched hypothetical of there being a significant amount of papers that accept the current model of climate while singling out AGW as inconclusive. Those papers would have to explain what unknown factor is cancelling out what’s expected to be a natural consequence of climate as we understand it.

Again: The issue being addressed is that surveys reveal that the population at large believe that there is substantial scientific dispute as to the reality of AGW.

It bears repeating so paullockett might pay attention.

Again: The issue being addressed is that surveys reveal that the population at large believe that there is substantial scientific dispute as to the reality of AGW.

The pie chart, shows, accurately, that there is no substantial scientific dispute as to the reality of AGW. It doesn’t matter whether the papers are assuming AGW is true, if they are providing indirect endorsement or if they are addressing it directly. All of these categories are identical to the purpose of the chart. Which is: separate “papers that deny the reality of AGW” from “papers that do not deny the reality of AGW”.

As you’re being pedantic – I agree with your second clause. Is that better?

Well, it’s better for my claim, but not-so-much for yours.

Consider the argument posed:

IF
there were substantial* disagreement, this would be evinced via explicit disagreementBUT
explicit disagreement is a minuscule proportion of peer-reviewed climate articles
THEREFORE
substantial disagreement is minuscule overall

You, a self-professed logician, contend that this is a flawed argument, though you agree with its premises; this implies you consider my inferential process invalid.

(I may be mistaken, but it seems to me like a simple application of logical implication to mutually-accepted premises; where am I going wrong?)

Again: that is what the words say – the graph, due to the labelling, is ambiguous.

It quantifies the ratio of papers which disagree with the proposition that AGW is real to the total number of papers, and you’ve just confirmed that only explicit disagreement evinces its existence.

(To what ambiguity do you refer, since it merely shows the disparity in cardinality between a set and its complement?)

Again: no it isn’t, because that isn’t my opinion, it is an opinion you have falsely assigned to me.

You’ve just agreed with the proposition that “if there were substantial disagreement, this would be evinced via explicit disagreement”, and you don’t dispute that only a tiny proportion of peer-reviewed studies explicitly disagree (therefore, no such explicit disagreement is substantially evinced); the ineluctable inference given those two propositions are true is that there is no substantial disagreement — yet you, a professed logician, maintain that this inference is invalid — and you further contend that my claim that the only logical way this inference can be invalid is if the vast majority of those who dispute that claim are keeping silent about their disagreement with that claim (AKA are not evincing their explicit disagreement) is false.

(Can you elucidate the basis for this invalidity? Because I fail to see where I am logically failing; rather, it seems to me that your agreement with my purportedly pedantic proposition contradicts your own claim to the falsehood of my inference given the dataset in question)

paullockett, can you clarify how it’s a “straw man”, since I did not attribute it to your, and you dispute neither premise, nor do you dispute the inferential process, nor do you claim it’s flawed, nor did I claim it was your argument?

Which you are also using. Where is your EVIDENCE you are right. Continued repeating of drivel is not EVIDENCE. It is trolling. This isn’t a logic problem, but rather you problem that you can’t and won’t acknowledge you are wrong, or consider that a possibility. Until you do, you are WRONG.

paullockett @382: You agree thatsurely if there were substantial* disagreement, this would be evinced via explicit disagreement
and you don’t dispute thatpeer-reviewed papers explicitly disagreeing to total papers are in a ration of 13950:24
yet you contend that the conclusiontherefore there is no substantial disagreement
is not logically valid.

(But you refuse to elucidate how it is logically invalid)

Further, you claim that it doesn’t contradict your contention that showing that the proportion of papers that disagree with the consensus is minuscule is an ambiguous claim, contrary to your acceptance of the proposition that if there were substantial disagreement, this would be evinced via explicit disagreement.

I believe it to be logically invalid because you make an unstated assumption that the volume of disagreement overall is directly proportionate to the volume of disagreement expressed in peer reviewed papers. I’m not saying that is untrue, just that it is an assumption.

you claim that it doesn’t contradict your contention that showing that the proportion of papers that disagree with the consensus is minuscule is an ambiguous claim

Because that isn’t my contention. My contention was that the graph is ambiguous because of the way it is labelled.

I have not read the thread, and will not, so apologies for perhaps having missed the cogent arguments hidden amidst the troll-stomping bluster, but I too think this pie chart is bullshit.

Articles were only scored as “rejecting AGW” if that was the major conclusion drawn from data presented. “Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.” However, such articles were almost certainly written by deniers, though they putatively tested some subsidiary hypothesis. Yet these are included in the black zone. In other words, to be counted among the rejectors and tallied in the red sliver, a study had to be 1) designed in the first place to test the overall binary question of AGW explicitly and 2) reject the overall hypothesis as a conclusion from data.

Nothing like these rigorous critera were required to be lumped into the black zone. Very very few of these articles were designed to test the overall binary question. They merely 1) do not explicitly reject the concept and 2) mention the concept at least once. Neither an acceptance by citation in the first sentence of the Intro nor a heuristic explanatory hypothesis or extrapolatory speculation in the Discussion is remotely similar to an explicit conclusion from data presented. Articles would even be included here if they tested a specific prediction of the overall AGW hypothesis (say, a shift in distributional range of an insect species) but failed to support it.

Paul, do you believe there is a substantial difference between scientific papers on climate that fail to mention AGW and those that fail to accept AGW?

In a similar vein, do you believe that there is a substantial difference between (for example) scientific papers on biology that fail to mention cell theory and those that fail to accept it?

. . .

Chas:

In other words, to be counted among the rejectors and tallied in the red sliver, a study had to be 1) designed in the first place to test the overall binary question of AGW explicitly and 2) reject the overall hypothesis as a conclusion from data.

Which is why they are labeled, in the chart, as ‘rejecting’ AGW. Doubting, finding flaw, discussing details – these are not ‘rejecting’.

The chart is labeled accurately, and the explanation for the labeling is given right there, in case you had any further questions. I know this… because you quoted it.

Ignoring the trolling and the deliberate obtuseness (sort of), it seems those who have a problem with the pie chart are upset that the chart does not support the claim they think it makes. But it does accurately represent the claim the author makes.

The author of the pie chart was attempting to show that AGW denial is not well-represented in the peer-reviewed literature, a fact that the data he presents seems to support. So why did Paul begin by making claims about scientists relying on “faith” instead of “facts”? Based on the evidence, I would posit that Paul is just another dilettante who believes he knows more about many subjects than the experts do. He came to this blog with a preconceived notion about the tribalism of those on both sides of the AGW issue, and he his mind has managed to manipulate the evidence to support his preconceived notion. The rest of us are dumbstruck by how poorly he has interpreted the data. It’s amusing that he repeatedly and continually calls out regulars whose identities and credentials are well-known on this blog.

I regularly meet AGW deniers who believe that AGW is a heavily disputed theory in the scientific community. Usually, they provide some sort of anecdotal evidence like, “I hear a radio show once where 6 climate scientists all questioned the validity of the theory.” This is of course laughable on its face, as 6 scientists (if they even really existed and were respected at all in their field) would do nothing to diminish the fact that a vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW as something that has been proven repeatedly and should not be questioned short of some fantastic, profound new evidence.

If your going to make fantastic claims, like almost all of accepted climate science is wrong, you need to provide some pretty incredible evidence, something besides an assertion that scientists accept AGW on “faith.”

If your going to make fantastic claims, like almost all of accepted climate science is wrong, you need to provide some pretty incredible evidence, something besides an assertion that scientists accept AGW on “faith.”

As nobody has made that claim, or anything like it, you are just trolling.

I think I figured out why this argument by PL is so annoying. It reminds me a long argument with a godbot, who insisted everybody must be an agnostic, and no one could be an atheist, since its imaginary deity could not be absolutely ruled out. And he defined his imaginary deity being unknowable, so it smuggly kept repeating its nonsense in spite of the evidence presented it was wrong.

Science and skepticism uses the null hypothesis to avoid such problems. What this does is cause a shift in the burden of evidence to where it belongs. We pointed out the lack of evidence for its imaginary deity, making the null hypothesis in that case non-existence. If the presuppositionalist wanted us to consider its imaginary deity, it could supply evidence of existence. Needless to say no evidence was forthcoming. So eventually it got tired of being asked to prove its case, and left without anybody agreeing to its “gottcha” fuckwittery.

In the present AGW argument, the null hypothesis is that with a scientific consensus reached, AGW is real and happening, and those who say otherwise need to back up their claims with evidence. No religious type belief involved, where all refutations will be ignored, but rather a “put up or shut up” attitude toward those who make anti-AGW claims. With prizes and accolades for any scientist who can show it wrong with solid and conclusive evidence.

PL appears to be trying to force everyone to reach the agnostic position in that since science can’t be absolutely sure, so it must totally waffle. This is not how science works. Science uses “good enough” knowledge to reach a “good enough” conclusion. Then waits for evidence to refute that conclusion. If no such refutation are forthcoming, the conclusion is even sounder than before. The graph shows a distinct lack of evidence refuting the null hypothesis of AGW is real and happening. The conclusion that AGW is real and happening isn’t really being debated. A few cranks are chipping at the edges, but they have nothing concrete. Which is why PL will get nowhere with its sophistry.

Holy fuck paullockett. How many times are you going to post one-liners that amount to “nuh uh” before you get as bored with yourself as we are with you? Seriously, you’ve posted in this thread roughly 110 times already. Over 25% of the comments here are yours. And you only started posting when we were almost 100 comments in, meaning that you’ve actually taken up a third of the comments in this thread since your arrival. Learn to shut the fuck up already.

ChasCPetersen,
Your post reveals a common misconception–that anthropogenic warming is a hypothesis to be verified. It is not.

Anthropogenic warming is a prediction of the consensus theory of climate science. The origin of the prediction is the importance of CO2 as a well mixed, long-lived greenhouse gas. You simply cannot explain the history or current behavior of Earth’s climate without such a greenhouse mechanism–both as a feedback and as a forcing. If you remove this tenet, the theory fails.

There is no alternative theory. Just as with evolution, the consensus theory is the only game in town. And just as biologists only rarely cite The Origin of Species, climate scientists do not cite the main pioneering papers for the consensus theory of Earth’s climate. It is implicit in every work.

The only escape clause would be the existence of a strong negative feedback added to the theory–a la Dick Lindzen’s discredited Iris theory. There is no good candidate for such a theory–so if a work is assuming such a negative feedback, it had better feature prominently in the methodology, really even in the abstract. It would be very nonstandard.

Absent such a negative feedback, it is inevitable that adding CO2 to the atmosphere MUST warm the planet. The amount of warming must be determined empirically, but it must warm. The 90% confidence interval for the amount of warming is 2 to 4.5 degrees per doubling. Even 2 degrees per doubling is cause for concern. Those claiming warming would not be a problem are betting civilization on a 100:1 longshot.

Thus, unless you are explicitly opposing the consensus theory, then you are using it, and therefore supporting it. What is more, having read most of these 24 denialist papers, they are a very sad lot. Most of them are severely flawed–to the point where they are assigned to undergraduate classes in climate science as a “spot the mistake” exercise.

As such, the graphic is an accurate depiction of the situation. It is also consistent with previous studies (e.g. that by Naomi Oreskes).

Paul,
Since there is clearly no understanding of your argument as to why you consider the graphic misleading, perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to outline it in detail. As it stands now, you are simply ducking and dodging even the sincere and relevant queries.

@400 a_ray_in_dilbert_space, it separates out one set of studies in a very narrow fashion, which is fine, but then fails to label the categories in a clear fashion. A chart should add clarity, but in this case, it introduces ambiguity when viewed independently of the wording.

Paul, there is no ambiguity. There are studies that use the consensus model–and therefore support it (because that is what support means in science) and those that do not. There are no well defined alternative models. There is no Chinese Menu–one from column A, one from column B–approach. You either use the menu or you do not.

It is even less ambiguous than the question of whether biology papers support or oppose evolution.

Some people have actually shown a willingness to discuss the issue rather than dish out insults.

Yes, you said that I was one of them a few hundred comments ago. But you are clearly not one. You’ve managed to compromise on the issue of whether to discuss or insult, by deciding to do neither. You’ve decided to just repeat yourself over and over, or just flat out dismiss whatever you think isn’t a perfect, dead-on characterization of position, whatever the fuck your current position may be. Some people want to discuss, some want to insult, you just dance. You dodge, dip, duck, dive, and dodge. You drip with arrogance and condescension rather than sully your reputation by using direct insults and cuss words. You are the Clown Prince of Logic. But we either need a better logician or a better clown, because your act is getting stale.

Paul, show us that you are seriously considering the possibility that you could be wrong. What evidence will cause you to say “I was wrong”? Look at what you are asking for then, and ask if you think the evidence required is truly unreasonable, like you expected us to prove a negative.

@406 dean, believe it or not, the decision of whether or not a degree is warranted is generally considered to be best determined by those who set the course of study and assess it over a three year period, rather than a ranting idiot on the internet after a day.

I am fully aware of what it takes to earn a degree, the decision processes involved. It is simply that they seem to have misfired greatly in your case. A “logician” who is incapable of framing an argument? A person who “studied and uses” logic who hasn’t demonstrated such? A self-professed “smart” guy who repeatedly lies and contradicts himself, while failing to note the points made by the scientists on this site?

You are either lying to us or lying to yourself (inclusive or) and doing a very easily detected job of it.

By the way, why are you concerned when people see it correctly instead of the incorrect way you’re pushing?

Because the sloppy presentation of data is one of my pet peeves.

People can’t have it both ways. If I am supposedly dealing with “experts,” then your understanding of the chart cannot be used to conclude that it is clear, because you don’t provide an adequate cross-section of people who may view it.

Paul, how is one to present a dichotomy in a pie chart unless one has two shaded areas proportional to the fractions each portion takes? The only criticism is than in reality, the red portion is exaggerated so that it shows up at all.

I fail to see how the pie chart is sloppy. I get that it is an oversimplification of the larger issue, but that was kind of the point–a simplified visual aide for those who falsely believe that there is a raging debate in the scientific community about the validity of AGW. Paul is very quick to criticize, but offers no suggestions about how the information could be better presented.

While criticizing someone who was far less sloppy in his presentation of facts than Paul has been on this site, Paul has made several bald assertions without supporting evidence, the most annoying of which is the false equivalency that there are mindless zealots on both sides of the AGW debate that take things on faith. I am not a climatologist, nor an expert in any related field. I accept that AGW is real because the experts in that field say that the question has been answered and that AGW is a very real and very serious threat to the planet. This is not something I take on “faith.” And its not something the experts blindly take on faith. And from what I can tell, the only argument really going on among climate experts is between the camp that says, “AWG is going to be the end of life as we know it on the planet” and those that say, “Well it might be that bad, or it might be slightly less bad.”

Paul, the original graphic was fine. All it showed or was meant to show is that only 24 articles rejecting global warming were published, out of a total of 14,000 published articles on climate. It shows that.

It doesn’t state that all 13,950 other articles solidly, unambiguously and rabidly support global warming. It just shows that only a small slice of articles rejecting warming were published. That’s all.

You could have taken that as evidence that there is a whole lotta suppression going’ on, if you wanted. But you took it as a fierce and full dichotomy, or, as you now claim, worried that others would. You are supposedly just trying to prevent perception errors.

Well, thank you from all us little, stupid people, you big, smart helpful man, you.

Look, nobody took it wrong. That’s all you and your friends’ imagination. And bloody contemptuous of you, too.

Even if we did take it wrong, so what? We aren’t going to whip out the pitchforks because of a damned cartoon. But again, you make an assumption much like that, thinking that our views on global warming are based on trivia.

And if our views are wrong, so what? This is just the comment section of a biology blog. If you guide us all to the light, what have you accomplished? Do you think we are going to go spread Paul’s truth through the world? If we have any influence out there, we probably also have education and intellect our own selves. You are wasting time here, your and ours, as you cannot accomplish anything useful.

You also assume that you can change our minds, through your methods and your continuous declaration that you are smart. Which is again holding us in contempt. Thanks.

Well, smart guy, it happens that I work Sudoku puzzles, and I am up to the “Very Hard” ones in this book, and I work them in ink, Mister. So your argument is invalid. (I’ve also a couple of degrees, or so I can assert.)

Paul, you’ve done the whole tone/sneering thing, and veiled insults, and clear insults, and quite a lot of other stuff that we’ve seen before. You are nothing new, and nothing good.

To a certain extent that’s true. I’m highlighting that you can make an assumption, but that assumption may not be necessary to what you are studying.

In this case it is! If your climate paper does not take AGW as a given, it’s either saying our entire model of climate is wrong, or that the carbon we’re spewing into the atmosphere is going somewhere else! It’s inescapable!

If I am supposedly dealing with “experts,” then your understanding of the chart cannot be used to conclude that it is clear, because you don’t provide an adequate cross-section of people who may view it.

Oh, the cross-section must include idiotic folks like yourself, and not experts who do understand exactly what is being demonstrated? Boy, your arrogance will never cease. Try humility, starting with the concept you can and are wrong.

vaiyt, having had to read this thread with my HyperskepticHat™ on (to make sense of paullockett’s posts), that’s not necessarily true. If you’re publishing on the effects of sea temperature rise on coral, say, it doesn’t matter whether the rise is due to AGW or a drop-off in cosmic rays to nucleate clouds; it carries the same information.

—

I think, being as charitable as I can, PL went off the rails at this:

whether global warming exists is binary, but a study to decide if it does, is not. There are three possible outcomes

… which isn’t really true. The consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity (to the usual doubling of CO2) is 2-4.5°C. Neither’s good, but one is clearly worse. The only “binary” aspect of this is that it is not zero, i.e., that AGW is real, not made up (which PL accepts).

Paul is very quick to criticize, but offers no suggestions about how the information could be better presented.

Label clearly and unambiguously what both sections represent.

Paul has made several bald assertions without supporting evidence, the most annoying of which is the false equivalency that there are mindless zealots on both sides of the AGW debate that take things on faith.

There are. I’ve encountered them, so I can state it with certainty.

I accept that AGW is real because the experts in that field say that the question has been answered and that AGW is a very real and very serious threat to the planet. This is not something I take on “faith.”

That doesn’t mean that others don’t reach conclusions differently.

And from what I can tell, the only argument really going on among climate experts is between the camp that says, “AWG is going to be the end of life as we know it on the planet” and those that say, “Well it might be that bad, or it might be slightly less bad.”

In this case it is! If your climate paper does not take AGW as a given, it’s either saying our entire model of climate is wrong, or that the carbon we’re spewing into the atmosphere is going somewhere else! It’s inescapable!

I was part way through typing a response to this, when I spotted the counter-example “cm’s changeable moniker” had given @418, which explains my point far more clearly than what I was typing, so I’ll piggy-back on that!

The black section is the 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012.

The red section is the 24 of them that reject global warming.

If you want to know the exact criteria for the labels, they are that the ones listed as having rejected global warming stated that they rejected global warming. The ones that aren’t listed as rejecting global warming…. didn’t.

The black section is the 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012.

The red section is the 24 of them that reject global warming.

If you want to know the exact criteria for the labels, they are that the ones listed as having rejected global warming stated that they rejected global warming. The ones that aren’t listed as rejecting global warming…. didn’t.

There you are, both sections labeled clearly and unambiguously.

You’re welcome.

The black section represents 13,926 articles, not 13,950.

That wasn’t an aspect I’d considered to be particularly ambiguous, but having seen the way it misled you, maybe I should have.

Or are you ignoring your claim that I believe in AGW like religious faith? Where is your apology for you lie? Where is your proof you are right at the end of the day, and you aren’t finding a minor irrelevant “victory” to flounce on with your arrogance and ignorance? Where is your honesty and integrity, which has been MIA since your first post?

For pl. There are other sources giving similar kinds of outcomes even though papers are selected and allocated on a different basis.

The Skeptical Science site has its ‘history’ graphic – but it’s designed for SkS criteria. Meaning that papers go into the “skeptic” category based on whether they oppose particular arguments out of the 200ish in the SkS listing. A good number of these wouldn’t go in the red zone on this graphic because they don’t make any claims about the overall theory.

What is useful is the ‘neutral’ category which is often about techniques or equipment or statistics – about how the science is done or could be refined rather than directly about the science itself. These neutral entries are about half the total, and they are of little to no interest outside the community of working scientists, which might account for people’s surprise about the large numbers – they just haven’t heard of this stuff.

Paul, you are still trying to present yourself as the sane and reasonable one, here. Well, I’ve a couple of quarrelling teenagers down the hall, each trying to do the same thing. Neither of them is right, and neither are you.

The chart is clearly labelled. The labels say what they say. There is no ambiguity in the chart. Each statement says what it says, it can do no other.

You, Paul Lockett, think it is about something else. But it isn’t. The reason it doesn’t clearly state what you think it is about, is because it isn’t about what you think it is about. You are wrong, the chart is what it is. The chart isn’t wrongly made, you are wrong in your assumptions.

You think the pie graph has a different agenda than it does. You are wrong.

You are angry because it isn’t labelled the way you think it should be to convey what it is about. Well, it isn’t about that. You are in error. The chart is not.

Look, the chart has two little statements, basically just numbers of articles, and there isn’t anything to argue with in either statement.

But you, you think it is about something else, and you are angry about that. So we get angry back, and I’m just going to paste this in here:

C: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!
‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies!

‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig!

‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

And this distinction, in medicine, is what we call clinically irrelevant.

And that is also what the pie chart graphically represents. The difference between 13926 and 13950 is so tiny that for practical purposes it may as well be zero.

In the field of mathematics, pie charts represent numbers and if your numbers are wrong, they are are wrong, irrespective of the scale. Saying “I’ve fucked it up, but I’ve not fucked it up materially” might cut it in medicine. It doesn’t in maths.

Basically, you know I’m right and the other person was wrong, but you’re trying to waffle it round in the opposite direction, because you don’t like me.

And you don’t understand scientific logic. I’m a scientist. Nothing we do is based on faith, just evidence.

PL the liar and bullshitter:
I’m not buying it. You just don’t come across as intelligent enough.

You made a claim, were proven wrong, as I am a scientist and was applying both science and skepticism to your idiocy. Why not admit you are wrong? Why can’t you admit you made a mistake? You aren’t perfect.

In the field of mathematics, pie charts represent numbers and if your numbers are wrong, they are are wrong, irrespective of the scale. Saying “I’ve fucked it up, but I’ve not fucked it up materially” might cut it in medicine. It doesn’t in maths.

Why don’t you nitpick that the red part of the graph is too big, then? At its real size, it wouldn’t even show up.

In the field of mathematics, pie charts represent numbers and if your numbers are wrong, they are are wrong, irrespective of the scale

Because the idea of their being a magnitude of error, and thus small errors versus large ones, is completely foreign to mathematics! Off by 0.172339508%*? Well, I guess you are completely wrong then! Might as well have given no answer at all. Because a miniscule error is the same as a moderate error is the same as a major error. Anything that isn’t the exact right number is absolutely wrong. So fuck you and your rounding, and estimation, and sig figs, and statistical significance.

I’m glad you decided to find one more thing to fail abysmally in, paul. Bravo.

(I was originally going to round to 0.17% but I didn’t want our local logician of accusing of doing math incorrectly for the high crime of being 1.3575% off of the real mathematical answer! It would be compounding error with error!)

Basically, you know I’m right and the other person was wrong, but you’re trying to waffle it round in the opposite direction, because you don’t like me.

The bit about medicine was just to explain the origin of the phrase. You getting huffy about medical standards is another case of you making any point you can any way you can. As would be said in engineering, the error was trivial.

The chart isn’t about math, the chart is about showing a little-bitty sliver in a big black sea. But the math is there on the chart, as you need it to be.

You were right about the numbers, but the other person wasn’t wrong enough to matter, so you were wrong to go after the point.

Basically, you know I’m right and the other person was wrong, but you’re trying to waffle it round in the opposite direction, because you don’t like me.

Again with the pop psychology.

…because you don’t like me.

Now there’s a statement that doesn’t belong in a science discussion.

But you brought it up, so let’s ride. No, I don’t like commenters who troll and whine and lie. And who seem to think this is all about their ego, about them.

Ducky, this wasn’t about you, personally, but you seem to think it is. You need to check your ego at the door of science, and you need to … hell, I’m not going to do the pop-psych bit.

You, personally, I don’t have an opinion on. If I met you on the street, I might develop an opinion. But here on this blog, you are simply a moniker and a bunch of hooey. paullockett is a gibbering loon — Paul Lockett, graduate of Manchester, I neither like or dislike, as I’ve never met him.

StevoR, yeah, I have thoughts. (On geoengineering – ed.) Hubris. The Law of Unintended Consequences.
[OT] Here’s a nursery rhyme for you:(The Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly – ed.)

Thing is we’re already experiencing the Law of Unintended consequences when it comes to Global Overheating occurring at all.

Hubris is a kind of religious notion and hubris or not, its going to be better to do what we can rather than nothing.

Yes, there are major risks and problems with geoengineering and these should be studied and considered and we should choose wisely. I’m not saying otherwise and doubt anyone seriously is.

But when things have passed the tipping points, when the world is changing radically and causing major human suffering and biological disaster, as alast resort – we’re going to do something.

I think its more a question of ‘what’ and ‘when’ geoengineering occurs now than ‘if’ it does.

I think human science and technology and industry could be our best hope. That and ensuring human survival by space exploration and colonisation.

***

“Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics – and you’ll get ten different answers. But there’s one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won’t just take us, it’ll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes – all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars.”

– Commander Sinclair, Babylon 5, Season 1, Episode 4 “Infection”

Of course, the fact that our Sun will swell into red giant hood and scorch the surface into a lava ocean if not utterly destroy the Earth before it even starts the growing cold process doesn’t diminish the sentiments there.

Sorry paul – I meant what I said. The Skeptical Science graphic is useful for illuminating issues around such distinctions, but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination “essentially the same underlying data”. The mere fact that only 5000 papers through the whole history of the science are categorised as against the 13000+ in 20 years here is a pretty big difference.

It’s collected and categorised entirely differently. The illumination comes from the explicit separation and highlighting of neutral and ‘for professionals only’ papers.

But you have now spent huge amounts of time and effort here vigourously, occasionally abusively, arguing about and making nitpicking criticisms of the minutiae of one illustrative graphic designed to highlight the disparity between those scientific papers accepting that reality that Human Induced rapid Global Overheating exists and those that reject HIRGO.

Why?

What do you gain or learn from this? What satisfaction do you take from coming here and arguing at such length over such a small point?

Talk about the proverbial storm in a teacup!

I don’t understand why you’d do this to yourself and to us over apparently so little an issue and, frankly, why you can’t just move on, preferably after admitting you got things wrong or at least way out of perspective and apologise to those you’ve insulted?

On Geoengineering: There are aspects of the climate we understand well–e.g. its response to changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, changes in insolation. There are aspects we understand poorly–response to aerosols, clouds, the carbon cycle and the role of the biosphere therein.

So we need further research and modelling to improve our understanding of those less well understood aspects. Something we need to do that benefits us in any case.

All geoengineering tactics tend to concentrate on those aspects we understand poorly and cannot model well.

Yet.

We’re learning and studying and working on better models and ‘twould be a good idea for us to start modelling more possible geoengineering solutions and perhaps even making preliminary experiments perhaps on other planets and in orbital stations or biosphere II type facilities so we can start to get the vital knowledge and know-how. Sooner we start thinking of the geoengineering possibilities and start keeping them in mind the better.

And if we get it wrong, we are fucked.

Problem is we’re already fucked anyhow.

Because of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating.

We’re currently running an unintended, highly dangerous experiment on what happens to a world – our home planet – if we keep increasing GHG emissions and changing our atmospheric composition.

That’s what’s fucked us.

Now how do we fix it or at least mitigate it and try to restore things to closer to how they’d be without that unintended experiment?

What solutions will actually work and are realistically plausible?

Reducing GHG emissions is a must – but what if as seems likely we’ve done so too late and natural feedbacks (eg. albedo changes at poles, melting permafrost,increasing desertification esp. for the Amazon rainforest, etc..) have already kicked in and we find our reductions have come too late?

If not geoengineering then what? Would it be better to just accept a world that’s getting horrifically worse and poorer and harder to survive or do act to change things even if the action itself isn’t risk-free and has some undesirable side-effects?

That doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

I’m not entirely certain or confident it is a good idea either. But what are the alternative ideas and are they realistically likely to be any better in terms of Humanity’s future?

StevoR, I wish some folks who oppose the very idea of HIRGO because they are afraid it may cost them money, would shift over to devising geoengineering solutions and trying to make money off the situation. We’d still have to check their work, of course.

I don’t understand why you’d do this to yourself and to us over apparently so little an issue and, frankly, why you can’t just move on, preferably after admitting you got things wrong or at least way out of perspective and apologise to those you’ve insulted?

As I said earlier, I’ve done it because I dislike the poor presentation of data. Where I’ve got things wrong or potentially missed something, I’ve acknowledged it. I won’t apologise to anybody because nobody is owed an apology from me. If you’ve seen the insults which have been aimed at me and then determined that I owe people an apology for responding in kind, that’s a very bizarre assessment.

Because a miniscule error is the same as a moderate error is the same as a major error. Anything that isn’t the exact right number is absolutely wrong. So fuck you and your rounding, and estimation, and sig figs, and statistical significance.

As I’m sure you are well aware, we are not talking about rounding in order to reach the numbers we use in the chart; we already have the numbers. The text of the research says that there are two categories, one containing 24 papers, the other containing 13,926. The chart has been produced on the basis of those numbers. If the chart were labelled to say that one category contains 24, the other 13,950, it would be wrong. Not tolerably wrong, or insignificantly wrong, just plain wrong, because it would, without explanation, use different numbers to those quoted in the study and create confusion.

In retrospect, the underlying error was, of course, perfectly understandable. There is a pie chart with two categories and two numbers on it. Given our experience of pie charts, we expect the larger number to be the size of the larger category and the smaller number to be the size of the smaller category. In this case that isn’t the true. Once again – clear, unambiguous labelling is important.

I got tired of reading that guy so I skipped ahead thinking I would find something else but no he was still at it all the way to the end.
he complained about the rough talk saying he was polite then later sounds just like the rest?
anything to take the discussion of AGW out of reality and replace it with an abstract discussion of nothing.

In the field of mathematics, pie charts represent numbers and if your numbers are wrong, they are are wrong, irrespective of the scale. Saying “I’ve fucked it up, but I’ve not fucked it up materially” might cut it in medicine. It doesn’t in maths.

Except that the pie chart isn’t wrong. The chart itself is RIGHT. And it properly makes the point it was intended to make. ONE person’s reading of the chart was slightly mistaken, and not in a way that makes any material difference to the actual issue at hand, or the actual message that the chart itself was intended to convey.

And yet you see it fit to perseverate over such an insignificance while simultaneously derailing and detracting and distracting from the real and important issue.

You projected that I “didn’t like” you. That was false at the time I wrote the prior post. Now, however, it no longer is.

Do you acknowledge that the graphic (including its labelling) does not evince that there exists significant scientific controversy (in the literature) between scientists as to the reality of AGW, but rather the contrary?

Nice try, but I didn’t say the chart was wrong, I said it was sloppy, ambiguous and unclear, but not wrong. What I said was wrong, was the proposed numbering suggested by another poster, an erroneous proposal which seems to have been prompted by the graph’s sloppiness.

StevoR, I wish some folks who oppose the very idea of HIRGO because they are afraid it may cost them money, would shift over to devising geoengineering solutions and trying to make money off the situation. We’d still have to check their work, of course.

Of course! Everybody’s work should be checked and rechecked especially on anything so significant and potentially harmful. Mine especially!

@459 John Morales, if you want to know why that is incorrect, it is explained @452

<snicker>

@462: “The text of the research says that there are two categories, one containing 24 papers, the other containing 13,926. The chart has been produced on the basis of those numbers. If the chart were labelled to say that one category contains 24, the other 13,950, it would be wrong”

Which (not coincidentally) is the same order of magnitude as my comparative example @459.

All those comments from you over so much of this thread that must have taken you so much time and effort and attention? Just to make a really minor nitpick? For real? (Shakes head) And I thought I was obsessive about some things and easy to get caught up in heated over-arguing on the intertoobs!*

Dude, was it worth it? Could you not have made your point once and then shrugged and moved on when people disagreed? I know its hard to do sometimes, been there, done that*, but really.

@456 Amphiox: “Except that the pie chart isn’t wrong. The chart itself is RIGHT.”
Nice try, but I didn’t say the chart was wrong, I said it was sloppy, ambiguous and unclear, but not wrong.

I disagree that that pie chart is sloppy, ambiguous and/or unclear.

I think it is very clear and, for pity’s sake, its an illustrative graphic designed to visually display the well-known overwhelming climatological consensus and just how overwhelming that scientific agreement is NOT a precise mathematical blueprint. It works pretty well if you ask me.

Paullockett, if you want to show somebody what a dinosaur looks like are you the sort of person who’ll look at a book to get an idea of, say , a sauropod and then reject it because you’ve counted the vertebraes in the artists impression and xe’s one short of the actual number? Or reject a T-Rex illustration because its been drawn without feathers and the claws a touch wrong?

As I’m sure you are well aware, we are not talking about rounding in order to reach the numbers we use in the chart; we already have the numbers.

Awww, how adorable. Paul still can’t fucking read. I wasn’t saying that someone was rounding. Hence why I also mentioned estimation, significant figures, and statistical significance also. I was giving examples, refuting your ridiculous claim that there isn’t such a thing as small versus large errors in mathematics. Which is, ironically, a far larger error than the mathematical error that you are oh so proud of pointing out. Which is a far bigger error than a potentially confusing label on a pie chart.

I had just assumed it had been produced correctly and it didn’t look too far off for a pie chart showing 24 against 13926.

paullocket 452: “A 0.17% error is serious business!”

If the chart were labelled to say that one category contains 24, the other 13,950, it would be wrong. Not tolerably wrong, or insignificantly wrong, just plain wrong

David Beach at 47, before paullocket shat all over the thread:

Unfortunately for the AGW deniers, the pie chart is graphically not even scaled in their favour. If that slice is 24/13950 of a degree, then the arclength of the little red slice at the outer perimeter should be less than 1/10 of a millimetre. It is not, so the pie chart slice should actually be even thinner to accurately represent the ratio 24/13950. I suspect that a slice that thin would just look black, so they enlarged it a bit to make it even visible.

What do you wanna bet that the exaggeration is more than by a factor of 0.17%?

(Eyeballing it and using the Making Pie Charts test that paullocket is fond of, it seems that the pie chart makes 24/13950 into roughly 1 degree, when it should be roughly 0.6 degrees.)

What you need to hear is that you are wrong. You have made an error in your assumptions, and you have shat all over the place, been rude, arrogant and deranged, rather than go back and look at your mistake. You could have shut the fuck up and left, you could have apologized and left, you could have screamed obscenities and left. You could even have apologized and stayed, and learned something.

But no, you are still here, still blattering away, and your current excuse is that you didn’t like the way the chart was done—you found it ambiguous. Nobody likes the way you have presented your case, but that doesn’t matter to you, does it? Everybody is fucking hating you, but your dislike of a fucking cartoon chart trumps everybody else’s screaming frustration with your raging buffoonery. Do you run into people’s houses and berate them for the poor-quality CGI on their TV shows? When the show contains no CGI?

Again I say unto you, you are in error about the intent of the chart. The reason it so poorly presents information about [whatever the fuck you think it is about] is that it isn’t about that. It’s about something else.

You are riding some particular hobby-horse so hard you can’t see that the rest of the world is doing something else. And, thanks to your egocentricity, we’ve spend this whole thread dealing with you and your problem. Any sane person would have stopped, regrouped, and changed course, but no, you expect a group of strangers, in their own accustomed place, to listen to you, and to be patient with you, and to agree with you, and to apologize to you for wasting your time and to grovel for having dared to disagree with you.

Once again:

The chart says that there were, “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012″ and it says, “24 reject global warming”. The chart doesn’t say how the numbers were arrived at, but you’ve said the chart itself is the problem, so I’m going to skip that.

As I said above, there isn’t room for error in a simple statement such as, “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012″. The number may be in error, but you’d have to get into the metadata to find that out. As a chart axis-caption, it is sufficient, and cannot be shown to be wrong by anything in the chart. The same holds for, “24 reject global warming”—it is a caption for a color, and if you want to prove it wrong, you need to leave the chart.

The intent of the chart is to show that out of a slough of articles, a small fraction were of a certain category. It does that by showing the category as a pie slice, and shows it in red, and shows the caption for that slice, “24 reject global warming”, also in red. See, the similar colors indicate the two go together. There is no error there.

Now, speaking of colors: Some tight-assed, fixated pedant with toilet-training issues might argue that the red slice’s articles, the “24 reject global warming” articles, belong within the “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012″. And they are right. And the rejecting articles are placed within the overall number. Look closely, and you will see that the “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012″ text is white, while the rest of the pie chart is black. The black sea of most-of-the-pie is not the “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012″. The “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012″ is the entirety of the circle.

Now, you could argue, and I’d even agree, that the graphic aspects of chart/graph/pie could have been laid out a little different to be a little clearer, but only if you are a tight-assed, fixated pedant with toilet-training issues would you care. The text of the chart conveys the needed information to someone concerned with math. The graphic part graphically shows that the fraction of articles that reject global warming is a small sliver indeed.

The chart is an attention-getting cartoon for the internet, not a serious graph in a government report. Even in a rigorous report, it would not be in noticeable error. It draws attention and it provokes discussion and inquiry.

Unfortunately, in this blog, it has provoked paullockett into an ego-driven drivel of epic proportions.

Paul, please restate your case—do NOT refer us to your previous comments—about what exactly is wrong with the chart. Model your efforts on this comment, please. Do not just say that it is ambiguous, say exactly how it is ambiguous and show why that is important.

Give us something that we can refer to and respond to, please.

(Odd: I’m getting lots of typing practice, here, but I seem to be typing “uous” a lot.)

Now, you could argue, and I’d even agree, that the graphic aspects of chart/graph/pie could have been laid out a little different to be a little clearer…

Which is exactly what I do argue.

…but only if you are a tight-assed, fixated pedant with toilet-training issues would you care.

+

You are riding some particular hobby-horse so hard you can’t see that the rest of the world is doing something else.

It’s a fair comment, but painfully lacking in self-awareness. Everybody here is banging on about things that the bulk of the rest of the world has no interest in. Our two fields of interest have over-lapped and you have determined that what I am concerned about is boring and of little interest and I should fuck off, which is fine, but don’t be so deluded as to think you are in a substantially different position.

And, thanks to your egocentricity, we’ve spend this whole thread dealing with you and your problem.

That was your choice. If you thought that what I was posting about was irrelevant and not worthy of discussion, but you still chose to post at length in response, that’s your problem. I didn’t force you to do it. I might be a tight-arsed, fixated pedant, but I wouldn’t waste my time posting about something I thought was irrelevant and uninteresting.

I might be a tight-arsed, fixated pedant, but I wouldn’t waste my time posting about something I thought was irrelevant and uninteresting.

Typical egotistical and arrogant troll raving. Who cares what we find interesting, just what you find interesting. Think about that before you post another fuckwitted piece of idiocy we find boring because we have already heard it twenty times before from you on this thread.

It’s a fair comment, but painfully lacking in self-awareness. Everybody here is banging on about things that the bulk of the rest of the world has no interest in. Our two fields of interest have over-lapped and you have determined that what I am concerned about is boring and of little interest and I should fuck off, which is fine, but don’t be so deluded as to think you are in a substantially different position.

And, thanks to your egocentricity, we’ve spend this whole thread dealing with you and your problem.

That was your choice. If you thought that what I was posting about was irrelevant and not worthy of discussion, but you still chose to post at length in response, that’s your problem. I didn’t force you to do it.

Well, I’ve got to hand it to Paul. That’s truly world-class gold medal trolling there. Not only trolling but blaming the victims. Why, if we had just shut up, Paul wouldn’t have been forced to continue imposing his presence on us. But at least he munificently refrained from forcing us to post in response! Thank the small gods for small favors!